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.

(Talking Points Memo)   National Review slams RNC autopsy for failing to identify "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 247
    More: Amusing, National Review, RNC, GOP  
•       •       •

3270 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 10:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-19 08:22:37 AM
considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.
 
2013-03-19 08:41:32 AM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.


You're assuming that they actually think their cunning criticisms through all the way though
 
2013-03-19 08:43:17 AM

somedude210: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

You're assuming that they actually think their cunning criticisms through all the way though


Or assuming they actually think, rather than simply react from their confused emotions.
 
2013-03-19 08:44:00 AM

St_Francis_P: somedude210: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

You're assuming that they actually think their cunning criticisms through all the way though

Or assuming they actually think, rather than simply react from their confused emotions.


That too
 
2013-03-19 08:55:01 AM
look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.
 
2013-03-19 09:05:45 AM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.


Yes, they are.
 
2013-03-19 09:13:02 AM

dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.


no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.
 
2013-03-19 09:22:50 AM

somedude210: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

You're assuming that they actually think their cunning criticisms through all the way though


So they are criticizing the report's lazy shallow analysis by providing more lazy shallow analysis of their own. Whoaaa, that is so meta!
 
2013-03-19 09:24:00 AM
RNC autopsy - the anus was remarkable.
 
2013-03-19 09:28:27 AM
Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

that's probably the best, most succinct explanation of the state of the current GOP i've seen. this should be printed on cards and handed out at CPAC.
 
2013-03-19 09:34:21 AM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


Their only option is to fark that chicken even harder.  Maybe the feathers will catch fire with all friction and a Phoenix will rise from the ashes and they can fark that instead for awhile
 
2013-03-19 09:34:47 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.


At what point does all the delusional, arrogant and obstinate become stupid? The Republican Party has been advocating non-functional policies for DECADES. We know their trickle-down bullshiat doesn't work, we know they are farking horrible on personal freedom issues. We know they no longer even offer practical policy in any arena. If they don't know this, they are stupid-plain and simple. Either their supporters are stupid or the leadership is stupid or both.

If they know these things yet continue to make them core planks of their platform, they are what? Trolls? Suicidal? Is the party made up of stupid not-so-rich people and greedy-yet-smart rich people? What of the women and blacks that are card-carrying Republicans? What are they?

Stupid just seems to cover most of it the easiest.
 
2013-03-19 09:35:08 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.


So, more medication and Republicanism can be managed successfully?
 
2013-03-19 09:35:48 AM

mrshowrules: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

Their only option is to fark that chicken even harder.  Maybe the feathers will catch fire with all friction and a Phoenix will rise from the ashes and they can fark that instead for awhile


Good god, that's farking hilarious.
 
2013-03-19 09:38:59 AM
I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.  they sure as hell won't accept outside help - not that anyone outside the Republican cult is willing to help them in the first place.  so it's entirely up to the Republican elites to fix their internal issues...but there's a problem with that fact as well: right now there IS no clear leader of the Republican party.  there's a cluster of rich and powerful elites.  there are powerful factions who work both behind the scenes and are visible front row center.  But there isn't one clear and well defined leader of the Republican party.  nor CAN there be a clear and powerful leader...because anyone who tries to step forward and lead the GOP gets sabotaged and back stabbed by either their nominal allies (for reasons of ego) AND jumped on by every OTHER faction within the GOP who are afraid that a strong leader would dial back their respective faction goals.

I think the most damaging aspect for the GOP's internal politics is that the evangelicals and the pro-corporate factions are roughly equal in power.  that's prevented the Republicans from being able to nominate one clear leader whom they could all rally around.  and the tea party is so insane and so annoying that they can't serve as a neutral party or moderating factor during negotiations.

it's possible the GOP could just well...'freeze in place' for a while.  they become so preoccupied with their own internal issues that they tune out the rest of the world almost completely.  at that point, the Democrats could easily elect almost anyone to office with little or no effective opposition.
 
2013-03-19 09:40:20 AM
insidepulse.com
Sam, this patient died because he was old, white, hated women, minorities and believed Reaganomics was feasible.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-19 09:41:26 AM
Now that we have had the autopsy, when is the burial?
 
2013-03-19 09:49:11 AM

dr_blasto: Stupid just seems to cover most of it the easiest.


I guess what i'm trying to say is - don't underestimate the Republicans.  if they ever get their shiat together, they can make life extremely difficult for the rest of us.  don't assume they're all dumb inbred tea baggers.  understand their psychology and you can use it against them.  one of the most glaring weaknesses of the Republican party is they can't (or won't) bother to understand YOUR motivations or psychology.  that lets you blind side them rather easily.  to most Republican True Believers, if you aren't with them, then you are The Enemy.  you're a 'librul' and 'libruls' are all alike.  the Republicans cannot conceive of a 'librul' protecting the second amendment or being a hunter.  they assume 'libruls' hate all businesses without cause or exception.  they assume corporations will always act in the best interests of this nation and that the GOP leadership is honorable.  And the GOP assumes that deep down everyone in the country is really a conservative christian with values just like themselves.

use those blind spots.  don't try to slug it out with the GOP on ideology, because you can't win that fight.  instead, encourage the GOP to dig in their heels and stick to their ideology even more than they would otherwise.
 
2013-03-19 09:51:23 AM
the GOP's main problem is that there aren't enough millionaires in the country. therefore they need the uneducated poors to vote for them as well. and to do that, they have to appeal to religion and race politics (ergo, the tea party). but as old tricorn-wearing, bible-thumping racists die off, even those two groups together aren't large enough to win national elections.

the only option is to change. but as weaver pointed out, they believe that change means weakness, so they're unlikely to do that. it's the scorpion and the frog.
 
2013-03-19 09:51:46 AM

Weaver95: it's possible the GOP could just well...'freeze in place' for a while.  they become so preoccupied with their own internal issues that they tune out the rest of the world almost completely.  at that point, the Democrats could easily elect almost anyone to office with little or no effective opposition.


That's a possibility but I doubt it would happen beyond 2016.

My fear is that the GOP's woes translate into the Democrats getting holier-than-thou and not caring about who they put up, and we end up with another Dubya because "well god, Gore is just  so boring..."
 
2013-03-19 10:01:41 AM

dr_blasto: We know their trickle-down bullshiat doesn't work,


WTF are you talking about. It works perfectly. Are the rich not getting richer?
 
2013-03-19 10:07:03 AM

somedude210: Weaver95: it's possible the GOP could just well...'freeze in place' for a while.  they become so preoccupied with their own internal issues that they tune out the rest of the world almost completely.  at that point, the Democrats could easily elect almost anyone to office with little or no effective opposition.

That's a possibility but I doubt it would happen beyond 2016.


Both sides cheat, but Republicans are much better at it.  Through redistricting, Republicans will probably keep the House through 2020, making real change nearly impossible.  And the only way it can get better by 2022 is if Democrats can tame the GOP's huge state government advantage by the 2020 state legislature elections before the next redistricting.
 
2013-03-19 10:07:32 AM

FlashHarry: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

that's probably the best, most succinct explanation of the state of the current GOP i've seen. this should be printed on cards and handed out at CPAC.


They wouldn't let you in the door with one.
 
2013-03-19 10:08:53 AM
Weaver95: one of the most glaring weaknesses of the Republican party is they can't (or won't) bother to understand YOUR motivations or psychology.

We have a winner, folks.

It's interesting to note that all of these GOP-produced reports about why they lost the last election cycle contain entirely internal research, i.e. voices and opinions from within the party. Not even once have we seen an effort by the GOP to look for answers outside the party. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do when a party loses an election would be for researchers from the losing party to speak with voters who did not vote for their party and ask those people why they chose to vote the way they did, specifically why they did not vote for them and why they chose some other candidate instead. There's been a little bit of talk about "outreach" from the more progressive voices in the party, but that's mostly about immigration issues so they can try to win over more Hispanic voters. Why has there been no discussion of reaching out to voters who voted against them so they can find out why those voters voted against them?

Seriously, we've seen all this shiat about how the GOP lost voters because the candidate they put forward didn't toe the line carefully enough on conservative values. There are people on the inside who think that they lost because they weren't conservative enough. Now, tell me, is it likely that there are any voters (let alone the couple of million that would have been needed to sway the results) who voted for Obama because the GOP isn't conservative enough? What a crock of shiat.
 
2013-03-19 10:08:57 AM

Lumpmoose: Both sides cheat, but Republicans are much better at it.  Through redistricting, Republicans will probably keep the House through 2020, making real change nearly impossible.  And the only way it can get better by 2022 is if Democrats can tame the GOP's huge state government advantage by the 2020 state legislature elections before the next redistricting.


I'm not so sure the GOP's hold at the state level is going to last as long as the Republicans seem to think it will.  if the GOP ideology continues on it's path towards ever more extreme views, their losses at the ballot box will only accelerate.
 
2013-03-19 10:15:56 AM
We all think about ourselves in terms of stories. I'm a policy analyst, and we all know that a single anecdote told to the right politician at the right time can launch a new initiative more easily than a binder full of carefully researched facts.

The GOP rely on the most toxic story there is: "They think they're better than you. They think they deserve something you don't have."  In the end, people didn't like Romney, they didn't much like the GOP policies, but they still voted R because they don't want to think of themselves as the kind of people who would vote for Democrats.

The problem is, the GOP story is tightening to appeal to a smaller and smaller group of people, and I don't know how they get themselves out of that corner without radically rewriting the message, which will 1) lose the trust of their base, and 2) end up indistinguishable from the Democrats.
 
2013-03-19 10:16:53 AM
Here's your problem, GOP... The vast majority of your base identifies with, and worships this:

cdn02.cdnwp.thefrisky.com
 
2013-03-19 10:20:32 AM

FlashHarry: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

that's probably the best, most succinct explanation of the state of the current GOP i've seen. this should be printed on cards and handed out at CPAC.


Agree
 
2013-03-19 10:26:21 AM

GiantRex:  Now, tell me, is it likely that there are any voters (let alone the couple of million that would have been needed to sway the results) who voted for Obama because the GOP isn't conservative enough? What a crock of shiat.


I think their rationale is that these people didn't vote for Obama but instead sat out the election, that the GOP needs to twist the Derp dial to 11 to get more true conservatives to vote. The GOP won't change until they nominate a "true conservative" for the presidency and then watch him(her) get beaten like a Christopher Walken cowbell.
 
2013-03-19 10:27:40 AM
"We can't tell you our conclusion, but it rhymes with 'Tree Core Funservative"
 
2013-03-19 10:32:28 AM

Speaker2Animals: GiantRex:  Now, tell me, is it likely that there are any voters (let alone the couple of million that would have been needed to sway the results) who voted for Obama because the GOP isn't conservative enough? What a crock of shiat.

I think their rationale is that these people didn't vote for Obama but instead sat out the election, that the GOP needs to twist the Derp dial to 11 to get more true conservatives to vote. The GOP won't change until they nominate a "true conservative" for the presidency and then watch him(her) get beaten like a Christopher Walken cowbell.


But, of course, losing is proof that the person they nominated wasn't really a "true conservative" and the next time they'll be sure to nominate a real one. Rinse and repeat.
 
2013-03-19 10:37:20 AM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.


Or not.
 
2013-03-19 10:48:37 AM
Clearly, the only solution is a groundbreaking idea so new that it hasn't been beta tested yet. What if we gave tax cuts -- are you still following me, here?-- what if we gave tax cuts...to the rich?
 
2013-03-19 10:50:20 AM
The GOP doesn't have any ideas or candidates worth a damn?
 
2013-03-19 10:50:32 AM
"the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"

news.sciencemag.org
 
2013-03-19 10:52:08 AM

Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.


Of course not every Hispanic falls neatly into a political box, but it's a fact that Bush had good success getting them to vote for him. And it's common sense that the hate from the GOP isn't going to encourage them to vote Republican. The alternative is to give up on a large and growing bloc of voters.
 
2013-03-19 10:52:26 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

"Well, it can't be our parenting policies - we're awesome!"
 
2013-03-19 10:52:40 AM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


Not without ejecting the Religious Right and the Idiot Brigade, and they aren't done milking those idiots for all the cash that they can. Those folks can still deliver smaller seats, and help districting issues, but it is a losing proposition in the Senate and for the White House.

You can't bank on anger to keep you going. Anger is not a bad thing to take advantage of for the short term, but in order to bank on it, you need folks who are just filled with bile and rage, and those folks...they don't play so well to Middle America. The folksy-homey act helps defeat some of the revulsion, but banking on stupid is likewise not a winning strategy in the long run. And that is what folks are trying to hook their dreams on. Rage and bile. And a lot of folks are tired of it, because it takes a LOT of energy to be that pissed off all the time. Glenn Beck couldn't manage to keep it together on TV. Even Phelps has to step out of the limelight or he gets frothy to the point of incoherency. Rush...he embodies that ethos, and he is consigned to radio, because it just ain't healthy. Even the "front runners" in the last straw poll, are making their conciliatory efforts to rein in those tendencies.  Of course, when you bank on milquetoasts who then switch on the Pretty Little Hate Machine, you get such a dichotomy that they appear unhinged, like Bachmann or Palin.

At some point, the party is either going to have eject the Idiot Brigade, or accept that they won't have the White House for a long while, and the Senate will slip away as well, leaving them a regional party, with Governors who are going to have to work like Hells to get elected with a decreasing base, especially in the face of hardship of economic policies that put a squeeze on most of the folks in their electorate. It can't continue, and at some point, folks are going to either have to come to grips with these facts, and dump blind ideology, and get back to reasoned policies.
 
2013-03-19 10:53:00 AM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.


No, what they mean is "poor", and thus more in favor of redistributionist policies. Not everything has to boil down to religion, you know
 
2013-03-19 10:53:18 AM
St_Francis_P:
Of course not every Hispanic falls neatly into a political box, but it's a fact that Bush had good success getting them to vote for him. And it's common sense that the hate from the GOP isn't going to encourage them to vote Republican. The alternative is to give up on a large and growing bloc of voters.

yes but remember - compromise of any sort is weakness.  the GOP cannot compromise on immigration reform.  Not even to save themselves.
 
2013-03-19 10:53:59 AM

Lost Thought 00: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

No, what they mean is "poor", and thus more in favor of redistributionist policies. Not everything has to boil down to religion, you know


I'm perfectly happy if you guys give up on them. Honest; please proceed.
 
2013-03-19 10:55:26 AM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.


My first ever "Done in One" but damn that was exactly what I was thinking.
 
2013-03-19 10:56:56 AM
The GOP isn't trying to figure out what went wrong with regards to their communication techniques or fine-tuning their message. Its not about figuring out social media or getting a better ground game. Its all about being able to better fool the voters into voting against their self-interests. Lets see, how can we call the blacks "freeloading n*&&ers" to increase our percentage of the white vote, while simultaneously appealing to the African-American bigots who hate gays? How can we simultaneously let the Hispanics know that they're all dirty illegal Mexicans to us, but they should vote for us because a lot of them are Catholic? How can we call a gay person a f*ggot who is leading the country down the path of moral decline while we tell people how inclusive we are? How can we call everyone who doesn't make $500k/yr a "taker" without getting caught on tape? How can we get the middle class to view the poor as the source of all their problems?
 
2013-03-19 11:00:02 AM

Weaver95: As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.


It doesn't take much thought to be "the lesser of two evils". So, yeah, they are actually "out-thinking them". It's just that the fruit is so damned low, Hellen Keller's Wienerdog could pick it.
 
2013-03-19 11:00:27 AM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.


I posted this story in another thread yesterday, but it is worth repeating..

Many years ago when I was a much younger man, I lusted after a beautiful Mexican girl that I worked with. She was super devout and fairly conservative.

I met her a bit before the 2000 elections and it surprised me that she was firmly in Gore's camp. I eventually asked her how she could vote for a democrat when I knew how conservative she was.

Her response was "The Republicans hate us". Enough said.

I never did get in her pants. Her crazy was a special kind of crazy.
 
2013-03-19 11:00:28 AM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.


Well sure but that would mean angering their nativist base which is just as loud as their evangelical one.
 
2013-03-19 11:01:07 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: The GOP isn't trying to figure out what went wrong with regards to their communication techniques or fine-tuning their message.

..

Spot-on, Dro.
 
2013-03-19 11:02:03 AM
the GOP is a tangled mess, it seems like for every major problem they have they have a sect within their ranks that would go to war with their own party to prevent addressing it.

they can't fix their problems without losing more support than they can afford and they can't get enough support to be more nationally viable without fixing their problems.

/Good luck with that
//just kidding, fail hard
 
2013-03-19 11:02:37 AM

Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.


Yes. I don't know any "Latinos". I know salvadorans and mexicans and cubans and peruvians (my father)

And while many hold what would be called "conservative" values about sex and abortion, that doesn't necessarily translate into republican political values about tax cuts, cutting education and social welfare services, and basically dicking over the poor. All over Latin America you can see leftist ideologies being much stronger than here. My father doesn't care for the gays or even other minorities but he does believe that publicly funded education is sacrosanct and key to social mobility. One party seems hellbent on destroying this and the social safety net to benefit richer people and "Latinos" aren't dumb enough to ignore it.
 
2013-03-19 11:02:46 AM
mrshowrules:

Their only option is to fark that chicken even harder.  Maybe the feathers will catch fire with all friction and a Phoenix will rise from the ashes and they can fark that instead for awhile

Why does it burn when I pee?
 
2013-03-19 11:03:15 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Its all about being able to better fool the voters into voting against their self-interests.


Chuck Todd yesterday - "The GOP does not yet know whether it needs to improve the pizza or the box."

// looking like, for the first time, the GOP has a laser-like focus on the box
 
2013-03-19 11:06:05 AM

Dr Dreidel: DROxINxTHExWIND: Its all about being able to better fool the voters into voting against their self-interests.

Chuck Todd yesterday - "The GOP does not yet know whether it needs to improve the pizza or the box."

// looking like, for the first time, the GOP has a laser-like focus on the box


See comments about providing economic opportunity for women (while opposing the fair pay act and making statements like "men should be paid more they are the ones who support the family") need to polish that turd into something more attractive.
 
2013-03-19 11:07:43 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Stupid just seems to cover most of it the easiest.

I guess what i'm trying to say is - don't underestimate the Republicans.  if they ever get their shiat together, they can make life extremely difficult for the rest of us.


Yes, but this isn't 1994 or the Bush years. The well oiled message machine has been clogged with tea bags. Karl Rove the chess player has been burned at the stake. They aren't in a position to pull anything off except cutting our nose off to spite our face.
 
2013-03-19 11:09:48 AM

Maud Dib: mrshowrules:

Their only option is to fark that chicken even harder.  Maybe the feathers will catch fire with all friction and a Phoenix will rise from the ashes and they can fark that instead for awhile

Why does it burn when I pee?


It means you are doing it right.
 
2013-03-19 11:12:37 AM
So yeah, is there any doubt left that the GOP is going to experience a schism and we'll have a hard right third party running against them?
 
2013-03-19 11:12:54 AM

St_Francis_P: Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.

Of course not every Hispanic falls neatly into a political box, but it's a fact that Bush had good success getting them to vote for him. And it's common sense that the hate from the GOP isn't going to encourage them to vote Republican. The alternative is to give up on a large and growing bloc of voters.


Which ignores the fact that at this moment, on a range of issues, Hispanics/Latinos are trending towards the liberal positions.
 
2013-03-19 11:13:19 AM

Lackofname: Weaver95: dr_blasto: Stupid just seems to cover most of it the easiest.

I guess what i'm trying to say is - don't underestimate the Republicans.  if they ever get their shiat together, they can make life extremely difficult for the rest of us.

Yes, but this isn't 1994 or the Bush years. The well oiled message machine has been clogged with tea bags. Karl Rove the chess player has been burned at the stake. They aren't in a position to pull anything off except cutting our nose off to spite our face.


I'm gleeful about the problems they have, but I refuse to count my chickens before they hatch.

Karl Rove is still out there. True, many current tea baggers say they hate him, and he's useless but I'd still put money on him sticking around doing work in 2016. Hell, he might still even land a job doing commentary on election night!

The GOP is shameless with a chronic short term memory. I wouldn't underestimate them no matter how warm and fuzzy it would make me feel.
 
2013-03-19 11:16:09 AM
Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration...

They're baby-killing, fascist, communist, atheistic Muslim terrorists looking for a handout?
 
2013-03-19 11:16:17 AM

Mentat: St_Francis_P: Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.

Of course not every Hispanic falls neatly into a political box, but it's a fact that Bush had good success getting them to vote for him. And it's common sense that the hate from the GOP isn't going to encourage them to vote Republican. The alternative is to give up on a large and growing bloc of voters.

Which ignores the fact that at this moment, on a range of issues, Hispanics/Latinos are trending towards the liberal positions.


So, give up on them and walk away?
 
2013-03-19 11:16:28 AM

Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.


From what I've read about 70% of US Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic. Not sure if that has drastically changed.
 
2013-03-19 11:19:13 AM
Reagan brought in the social conservatives and for nearly two decades the financial leaders of the Republican Party was happy to pay lip service to them in order to get their votes. They did not actually care about any of their issues, because they have nothing to do with money - in fact many business leaders have pointed out that a lot of the social conservative policies COST money. But that was OK, because they had no intention of implementing any of them - they successfully convince social conservatives that "big business" was good for them, and got their votes.

The problem for them is that said social conservatives eventually got pissed off and started getting their own candidates elected during the 2000s/Bush years, and the party elites don't know what to do now. Said conservatives now want absolute adherence to their views from any and all candidates, and some of those views don't play well outside of their circles.

I look at the Portman thing - if you head to Townhall or Freep you'll see dozens of threads filled with hundreds or thousands of posts of people talking about how the gay issue is simply not negotiable, and they won't accept a candidate that compromises on it. Others openly wonder why an issue that affects such a small percentage of people is actually getting attention, and assume it's a conspiracy. They don't get that people can be in favor of fairness or equality for OTHERS and consider that as actually being important.

As long as the social conservatives are a huge focus, the party will be in trouble in national elections. Local and state elections, where the governor of a non-Bible State can profess neutrality on such, they do betterz
 
2013-03-19 11:22:31 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: The GOP isn't trying to figure out what went wrong with regards to their communication techniques or fine-tuning their message. Its not about figuring out social media or getting a better ground game. Its all about being able to better fool the voters into voting against their self-interests. Lets see, how can we call the blacks "freeloading n*&&ers" to increase our percentage of the white vote, while simultaneously appealing to the African-American bigots who hate gays? How can we simultaneously let the Hispanics know that they're all dirty illegal Mexicans to us, but they should vote for us because a lot of them are Catholic? How can we call a gay person a f*ggot who is leading the country down the path of moral decline while we tell people how inclusive we are? How can we call everyone who doesn't make $500k/yr a "taker" without getting caught on tape? How can we get the middle class to view the poor as the source of all their problems?


This was my earliest appearance:

mrshowrules         
2005-09-30 10:00:10 AM  
Feedthecollapse:
I was sure that gasoline had nothing to do with the air conditioning...?
I think running the AC compressor creates resistance on one of the belts which causes the engine to work harder using more gas. However, you can argue that driving the bus with the windows open creates more drag and therefore might use up even more gas. Myth Busters had a show on this but I forget the conclusion.
My Boobies ever by the way!


Yes, I was boobied in my Boobies.
 
2013-03-19 11:22:34 AM
1. Look, everybody knows that the problem is that the GOP sat back and allowed Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of their precious bodily fluids. That's why they lost the election and they're just going to have to purge that shiat if they ever expect to get anywhere.

2. When I want to read an NRO editorial, TPM is always my go- to source.
 
2013-03-19 11:26:10 AM
1. Focus on rewarding work (I do not mean an A+ for participation) and encouraging the success of businesses with less than 50 employees.

2. Quit telling Americans how to live. "Freedom" does not include the right to own people.

3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.

If both parties hate me for these ideas, then good.
 
2013-03-19 11:28:07 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.


This. Some of the most brilliant people I've ever known are Republican. Everything is fine and dandy as long as you don't bring up politics or religion. It gets scary though when you dare to even mention Obamas name or even put the letters O and B close enough together to even make that sound that they turn into that fire-breathing hell beast devoid of all things logical. It really is an amazing sight to behold.
 
2013-03-19 11:28:24 AM

St_Francis_P: Mentat: St_Francis_P: Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.

Of course not every Hispanic falls neatly into a political box, but it's a fact that Bush had good success getting them to vote for him. And it's common sense that the hate from the GOP isn't going to encourage them to vote Republican. The alternative is to give up on a large and growing bloc of voters.

Which ignores the fact that at this moment, on a range of issues, Hispanics/Latinos are trending towards the liberal positions.

So, give up on them and walk away?


Of course not.  Scare people about non-existent voter fraud so you can pass restrictive laws that primarily effect people who vote Democratic, and mess around with the Electoral College.
 
2013-03-19 11:29:44 AM

Fart_Machine: Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.

From what I've read about 70% of US Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic. Not sure if that has drastically changed.


Which means they are pro-life and for social justice.
 
2013-03-19 11:30:20 AM

Foundling: 1. Focus on rewarding work (I do not mean an A+ for participation) and encouraging the success of businesses with less than 50 employees.

2. Quit telling Americans how to live. "Freedom" does not include the right to own people.

3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.

If both parties hate me for these ideas, then good.


There are some...problems with this list.

But you knew that.
 
2013-03-19 11:30:52 AM
National Review Piece: In reality, selling the Republican party's appeal is more about the appeal than about the selling.

So, neither the National Review nor the RNC group are willing to flatly admit that the core problem is: "current GOP political policies as practiced suck for lots of people". (The RNC comes closer.) However, the core problem isn't the appeal or the selling -- it's the product. However, they're incapable of considering that most people rejecting GOP notions about what ought to be done might be a symptom that the GOP are in the political wrong.
 
2013-03-19 11:32:23 AM
i.imgur.com


Belongs in all these threads
 
2013-03-19 11:34:49 AM
considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

They are liberal in the same sense that Richard Lugar was a RINO.  The Republican party has gone so far to the right that Reagan is liberal by comparison.
 
2013-03-19 11:36:23 AM
I read the report.  I found it funny that it spends a lot of time into improving messaging to woman, minorities and young people.  Completely glossing over the fact that its the GOP policies that women, minorities and young people hate and not the fact the GOP is not doing proper outreach to those groups of people.
 
2013-03-19 11:37:40 AM

Gergesa: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

They are liberal in the same sense that Richard Lugar was a RINO.  The Republican party has gone so far to the right that Reagan is liberal by comparison.


Reagan...that's the guy that gave blanket amnesty to illegal aliens, right?

Yeah, RINO.
 
2013-03-19 11:39:07 AM

Fart_Machine: Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.

From what I've read about 70% of US Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic. Not sure if that has drastically changed.


59% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage.  That's 1% higher than the country as a whole:  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-ris e -in-support-for-gay-marriage/

American Catholics do not necessarily match the American/Vatican hierarchy or what the GOP likes to pin on them.
 
2013-03-19 11:44:02 AM

Foundling: 3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon.


This would require a substantial increase in government and higher taxes to implement, something that one party finds abhorrent.
 
2013-03-19 11:44:33 AM

gingerjet: I read the report.  I found it funny that it spends a lot of time into improving messaging to woman, minorities and young people.  Completely glossing over the fact that its the GOP policies that women, minorities and young people hate and not the fact the GOP is not doing proper outreach to those groups of people.


I know what will work a web site.  Young people love computers and we can have women's section done in pink telling them stuff about families and kids maybe a few jello recipes.  We can even translate a few pages into Spanish as outreach, the go part is that we will only translate stuff we think they will like.
 
2013-03-19 11:44:41 AM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


TAX CUTS!!!!
 
2013-03-19 11:49:35 AM

Ishkur: Foundling: 3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon.

This would require a substantial increase in government and higher taxes to implement, something that one party finds abhorrent.


No you just tell the people already working for the government that "You're lucky to have job" and increase their workload.  I'd guess you could stick five, maybe up to eight, of these people in each public classroom in the country and let the teachers help them in their free time.
 
2013-03-19 11:49:51 AM

Generation_D: Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.

So, more medication and Republicanism can be managed successfully?


I would suggest a full frontal lobotomy and electric shocks.
 
2013-03-19 11:50:40 AM
newnation.sg
 
2013-03-19 11:50:55 AM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.



i78.photobucket.com

TEA-rell: The facts of life... to make a radical alteration in the evolvement of an American political party is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
GOP Batty: Why not?
TEA-rell: Because by the second mid-term of incubation, any cells that have undergone TEA Party/Nativist reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.
GOP Batty: What about EMS-3 Moderate recombination?
TEA-rell: We've already tried it - Huntsman, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Christie......; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
GOP Batty: Then a RINO repressor protein that would block the operating cells.
TEA-rell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a TEA Party mutation - and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
GOP Batty: But not to last.
TEA-rell: The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, GOP. Look at you: you're the Prodigal Son; you're quite a prize!
GOP Batty: I've done... questionable things for votes.
TEA-rell: Also extraordinary things; revel in your time.
GOP Batty: Nothing the God of Politics wouldn't let you into heaven for.
 
2013-03-19 11:51:16 AM
Don't listen to those libby, lib libs as the RNC, Republicans!

STAY THE COURSE!

/You're winning.
 
2013-03-19 11:51:23 AM

markie_farkie: Here's your problem, GOP... The vast majority of your base identifies with, and worships this:

[cdn02.cdnwp.thefrisky.com image 600x450]


Point of order: You can get those in New York City. I can walk two blocks and get a farking 48-ounce Super Big Gulp for two bucks and change. 7-11 is exempt as a "grocery," and can sell huge sodas.

It doesn't make the law any less stupid, but like so many right-wing tropes it's based on an example that has absolutely no basis in reality.
 
2013-03-19 11:53:22 AM

Foundling: . (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm.


Because history has proven there's nothing more effective than cold-calling.
 
2013-03-19 11:53:39 AM

EyeballKid: Clearly, the only solution is a groundbreaking idea so new that it hasn't been beta tested yet. What if we gave tax cuts -- are you still following me, here?-- what if we gave tax cuts...to the rich?


Paul Ryan agrees...

i.imgbox.com
 
2013-03-19 11:55:13 AM

Gergesa: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

They are liberal in the same sense that Richard Lugar was a RINO.  The Republican party has gone so far to the right that Reagan is liberal by comparison.


Or people like my wife are now considered liberal and she is actually pretty conservative.

Except, she uses common sense. She really is anti-abortion but realizes that ship has sailed and the issue was settled 40 yeas ago. Plus, she realizes that people are going to get them no matter what so they may as well do it safely. I'm fairly sure she is for abstinence (of course, we farked like crazy before we were married) but also knows that kids need to know about birth control and protecting themselves.

And after the Rapey McRaperson comments during the last election cycle, she vowed to never vote for a Republican again.

And she thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot. So she has that going for her.
 
2013-03-19 11:55:23 AM

Fizpez: No you just tell the people already working for the government that "You're lucky to have job" and increase their workload.


Silly Lib.  Government jobs aren't REAL jobs.
 
2013-03-19 11:56:20 AM
From what I can see, the Republican's focus is controlling state governments.  The power that comes with that enables them to legally propose and pass legislation that disenfranchises potentially pro-Democrat voters.  Yes, the courts will intervene, but on balance I believe the Republicans will succeed.  They have learnt that no matter how nefarious the action, the news-cycle will move on in a few days.
 
2013-03-19 11:57:07 AM
Is the solution something that rhymes with Snorlax Butts?
 
2013-03-19 11:58:22 AM

Foundling: . (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.


Why don't they, I don't know, do something actually productive that helps the economy like improving infrastructure and conservation?
 
2013-03-19 12:00:06 PM

markie_farkie: Here's your problem, GOP... The vast majority of your base identifies with, and worships this:


i.imgur.com

My goodness.  It certainly looks like she's been sipping from a Big Derp.
 
2013-03-19 12:02:37 PM
You know - if the GOP figures out a way to bring old dead people back to life they just might have a chance.  Seriously, I think that's a big part of their problem - the people who religiously vote "R" are dying.

That and the whole "we hate and seek to punish everyone who is not like us".....
 
2013-03-19 12:04:09 PM
Heard it put best on NPR yesterday.

The GOP must rebrand itself or it will die.

The first rule of rebranding is don't let anyone know you're doing it.

If you listen closely to what they are saying, some things are very subtly changing. I think it's mostly disingenuous, but they are taking baby steps. The evangelicals are getting the shaft.

And that's a good thing.
 
2013-03-19 12:04:46 PM
It appears the GOP has chosen the way of pain.
 
2013-03-19 12:05:42 PM

Lumpmoose: Fart_Machine: Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.

From what I've read about 70% of US Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic. Not sure if that has drastically changed.

59% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage.  That's 1% higher than the country as a whole:  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-ris e -in-support-for-gay-marriage/

American Catholics do not necessarily match the American/Vatican hierarchy or what the GOP likes to pin on them.


You know growing up Catholic, I don't identify myself as one now as I haven't been in a church in years, my parents and most of their friends where pretty liberal.  The abortion issue was a problem but not a deal breaker for many of them.  Other social issues and what not mattered more.  Most of my friends who still identify as Catholics are still pretty liberal for the most part, a few tea bagger but that is for other reasons. The upper hierarchy of the Church may tend GOP/conservative but the rank and file tend to more centrist/liberal.
 
2013-03-19 12:05:56 PM

Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.
 
2013-03-19 12:06:55 PM
The GOP has two policies: tax cuts and shaming sluts.
 
2013-03-19 12:07:47 PM
I will say this though.

If the National Review claims this postmortem "didn't offer a viable change of course", they are correct.

Moderation is the only viable course at this point, and anyone even slightly to the left of Mussolini is screamed at as a RINO and a leftist.
 
2013-03-19 12:10:45 PM

Mentat: St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them.

Or not.


That was a very illuminating study/poll, however even though it notes that Latinos identify themselves as "Liberal" more than the general populace (30% versus 20% ish), and they are right in line with public acceptance of homosexuals, there's a serious anti-abortion and strong religious core to the group that can more than make up for that if the Republicans can use them as wedge issues. 51% of respondents against abortion is enough of an issue by itself if it's properly addressed, let alone the serious core of religious conservatives.

Let's hope that the GOP doesn't figure out how to make this a core issue to Latino voters next time.
 
2013-03-19 12:12:09 PM

St_Francis_P: considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration.

And by "ideologically liberal" they mean staunchly anti-abortion conservative Catholics, who might vote conservative if Republicans didn't make it so plain that they hate them poor and brown.


And there you have the reasons why the GOP doesn't think they're possible to win over.
 
2013-03-19 12:14:13 PM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.  they KNOW why they lost.  But they cannot actually admit to those reasons in public...not without setting off another civil war within the ranks.  they're trapped in a cage of their own making.  the evangelicals won't let them slide on moral issues, the corporate elite won't let them slide one penny on fiscal issues, and years of training their rank and file to believe that ANY compromise is a sign of weakness prevents them from brokering even an internal peace accord, let alone finding some way to make a deal with the Democrats.

the GOP is locked into it's current course.  I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


It couldn't happen to a group more deserving.
 
2013-03-19 12:14:15 PM

meat0918: It appears the GOP has chosen the way of pain.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
They chose... poorly.


/hot like the holy grail
 
2013-03-19 12:14:29 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.


i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.
 
2013-03-19 12:15:18 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So yeah, is there any doubt left that the GOP is going to experience a schism and we'll have a hard right third party running against them?


That's one major possibility. Closely related is that the schism may peel off the more socially moderate elements, and the GOP will be the hard right party.

Either way, it looks to be headed to a schism between more theocratic elements and more laissez faire libertarian/business types, leaving both fighting over which has the "true" claim to the GOP/Republican name. There's some factions in the Democrats that might be sheered off, depending on how the GOP split goes.

Mentat: Which ignores the fact that at this moment, on a range of issues, Hispanics/Latinos are trending towards the liberal positions.


On most issues, from what I can tell. Though they're more liberal on contraception, they're still more conservative than other Americans on abortion; however, I suspect that's because religiosity remains a cultural norm.

Fart_Machine: From what I've read about 70% of US Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic. Not sure if that has drastically changed.


Hispanics are less likely to be unaffiliated than Americans generally, but more likely to be "not very strong" in their religious identification -- suggesting there may be a social shift impending there. This also holds true specifically among Hispanics who were raised as Catholics.

Lackofname: Which means they are pro-life and for social justice.


I expect the latter will continue (though I consider the label imprecise) even as the religiosity fades.
 
2013-03-19 12:19:24 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.


I think conservative hegemony on the gun issue ended when a crazy dude put a bullet into the brainpan of 20 first-graders.  There is a large bi-partisan consensus that something needs to be done.  I think the assault weapon ban is off the table (it is honestly a bad idea and harry Reid will never let it come to a vote) but it is a useful bargaining chip.  Comprehensive background checks for gun purchase and the removal of the gun show loophole is garnering 80%+ support across the ideological spectrum.  It's also not helping them that Wayne LaPierre is going all clownshoes on the issue.  This is not 1995.
 
2013-03-19 12:21:14 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.


Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.


Cry wolf about what?
 
2013-03-19 12:21:20 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"

[news.sciencemag.org image 476x600]



They meant it the same way Michael Corleone did in the beginning voiceover in The Godfather.
 
2013-03-19 12:25:12 PM
As a Democrat and a gun owner, I must say that the gun control being proposed is fairly stupid. Pistol grips on rifles are basically cosmetic, not intrinsic to functionality. Magazine sizes? Buy more, smaller, magazines. Background checks only work if the legitimate owner has a gun safe. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
2013-03-19 12:26:34 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.

Cry wolf about what?


everything.  abortions, gun control, socialized medicine, Iran, the war on terror, the war on drugs, illegal aliens, the economy, socialism...the list goes on and on.  every time the GOP needs to motivate the troops they make wild claims about one of their grab bag of wedge issues.  But it's starting to become less effective.  people aren't reaching the necessary levels of outrage any more.
 
2013-03-19 12:29:52 PM

Ennuipoet: [insidepulse.com image 620x387]
Sam, this patient died because he was old, white, hated women, minorities and believed Reaganomics was feasible.


+1 internet for use of Quincy M.E.


also.. WTB the national review a mirror.
 
2013-03-19 12:30:13 PM

simplicimus: As a Democrat and a gun owner, I must say that the gun control being proposed is fairly stupid. Pistol grips on rifles are basically cosmetic, not intrinsic to functionality. Magazine sizes? Buy more, smaller, magazines. Background checks only work if the legitimate owner has a gun safe. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


ah, but you miss the point of raising the issue in the first place.  shout 'gun control' and suddenly nobody is talking about the GOP falling apart anymore...they're shouting about gun violence in america and chanting about conspiracy theories to steal their guns.  discussion averted, and the problem goes unaddressed for yet another day....but how long can the GOP keep ignoring their rotting infrastructure?  how long do they have until their foundations rust through completely?
 
2013-03-19 12:30:43 PM

amiable: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

I think conservative hegemony on the gun issue ended when a crazy dude put a bullet into the brainpan of 20 first-graders.  There is a large bi-partisan consensus that something needs to be done.  I think the assault weapon ban is off the table (it is honestly a bad idea and harry Reid will never let it come to a vote) but it is a useful bargaining chip.  Comprehensive background checks for gun purchase and the removal of the gun show loophole is garnering 80%+ support across the ideological spectrum.  It's also not helping them that Wayne LaPierre is going all clownshoes on the issue.  This is not 1995.


At best a handful of conservatives changed their minds about guns after Newton.  Maybe a bit more democrat gun owners no longer believe the same things about guns.  But their are tons and tons of liberal gun owners, that aren't going to vote for a democrat that pushes for mag restrictions or weapon bans.  If they are like me, they won't vote for their republican rival, but they won't vote for them.

I don't see myself as democrat or republican.  I like to see myself as approaching the subject and coming to a conclusion based on facts and reason, and then on people should be allowed to do what they want.  On 99% of the issues facts and reason seem to fall to the along liberal lines.  But the facts and reason don't support gun control.  So I'm a gun owning liberal.

And no their is not a large bipartisan consensus, hence the reason nothing has changed yet (except in a few states, and I would guess those states are going to have their laws shot down eventually in court.)  Though personally I think the "gunshow loophole" and the background thing don't need to be an issue.  They should be able to create an iphone app that can let you do a check on somebody without storing the info on your phone, and retains anonymity preventing the registration of guns.  Or every gun show has a booth that you can get a check and a wrist band for that day.
 
2013-03-19 12:32:52 PM

Weaver95: simplicimus: As a Democrat and a gun owner, I must say that the gun control being proposed is fairly stupid. Pistol grips on rifles are basically cosmetic, not intrinsic to functionality. Magazine sizes? Buy more, smaller, magazines. Background checks only work if the legitimate owner has a gun safe. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

ah, but you miss the point of raising the issue in the first place.  shout 'gun control' and suddenly nobody is talking about the GOP falling apart anymore...they're shouting about gun violence in america and chanting about conspiracy theories to steal their guns.  discussion averted, and the problem goes unaddressed for yet another day....but how long can the GOP keep ignoring their rotting infrastructure?  how long do they have until their foundations rust through completely?


Sometime after the 2014 elections allow them to hold onto the House (Gerry Mander is a great guy at parties) but they still fail to take the Senate, but before the 2016 Presidential race, if they are lucky.
 
2013-03-19 12:33:25 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.

Cry wolf about what?

everything.  abortions, gun control, socialized medicine, Iran, the war on terror, the war on drugs, illegal aliens, the economy, socialism...the list goes on and on.  every time the GOP needs to motivate the troops they make wild claims about one of their grab bag of wedge issues.  But it's starting to become less effective.  people aren't reaching the necessary levels of outrage any more.


It is not crying wolf in California, Colorado or NY that they are going to restrict your gun rights and want to implement these same policies federally.

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.
 
2013-03-19 12:34:10 PM

manimal2878: Or every gun show has a booth that you can get a check and a wrist band for that day.


So simple, a farker can come up with the most obvious solution.
 
2013-03-19 12:35:23 PM
Ever since the "Contract On America" fiasco the Republicans have given up on any competitive constructive ideas and have been working the ole voter suppression tactics.  Now those chickens have come home to roost and the GOP is running around in a panic, doubling down on the stupid.  May they fade away like their Whig predecessors.
 
2013-03-19 12:36:08 PM
I'll give you an idea how far the Republican Party has slipped from sanity. The Democrats make sense in comparison.

THAT IS ALL.
 
2013-03-19 12:36:52 PM
It turns out that the hispanic folk that can, y'know,  vote are already here legally and are worried about the economy and value standard american things like equality (for instance, when you're trying to marry your partner) like the rest of us and couldn't be arsed to care about immigration law.

Who the fark knew except everyone that can outsmart a doorknob.

simplicimus: As a Democrat and a gun owner, I must say that the gun control being proposed is fairly stupid. Pistol grips on rifles are basically cosmetic, not intrinsic to functionality. Magazine sizes? Buy more, smaller, magazines. Background checks only work if the legitimate owner has a gun safe. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Actually, it seems like the Dems have wised up and put Feinstein's utter and complete stupidity with the outright bans into a separate proposed bill with a separate committee approval date from the actual sane stuff that everyone agrees on like closing the loopholes that let you sell without background checks and making legal declarations of mental incompetence or psychopathy show up by default when you call the database.

So basically they might actually be able to claim legitimate progress on the gun thing without handing a bunch of seats to the GOP by just letting Feinstein's stupid die on its own while they quietly pass the other stuff.
 
2013-03-19 12:37:54 PM
meat0918:
Sometime after the 2014 elections allow them to hold onto the House (Gerry Mander is a great guy at parties) but they still fail to take the Senate, but before the 2016 Presidential race, if they are lucky.

unless the tea party primaries a bunch of ranking Republicans for not being 'conservative enough'.  Rove and tea baggers have been having a not so quiet fight about that sort of thing.  so the GOP could still lose out to the 'baggers.  then lose control of key committee assignments while maintaining parity in numbers.
 
2013-03-19 12:39:36 PM

meat0918: manimal2878: Or every gun show has a booth that you can get a check and a wrist band for that day.

So simple, a farker can come up with the most obvious solution.


Even better: I say we tranq and tag 'em like we do polar bears and set them loose. Track 'em from there.
 
2013-03-19 12:40:23 PM
manimal2878:

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.

And that's how the GOP manages to get you to vote against your own self interests....
 
2013-03-19 12:40:46 PM

manimal2878: It is not crying wolf in California, Colorado or NY that they are going to restrict your gun rights and want to implement these same policies federally.



In all fairness, you're really just talking New York CITY, most of the STATE is about as restrictive on guns as, say, Texas.  And NYC is essentially a micromanaging fascist state in general, not just on guns, they regulate random bullshiat like the size of soda you can drink and are now trying to ban advertising completely legal products in the primary places they're sold.

California I guess you've got a point.
 
2013-03-19 12:45:32 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878:

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.

And that's how the GOP manages to get you to vote against your own self interests....



No, that is how the Democrats convince me not to vote for them either.
 
2013-03-19 12:46:19 PM
manimal2878:

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.

So basically what you are saying here is that you are a single issue voter.  That's fine, but most folk aren't.  The assault weapon ban isn't happening but background checks and gun show loophole closing most likely are.  If you can't vote for the Democrat's because of that I don't know what to tell you other than you are quite a bit outside the mainstream on those issues.
 
2013-03-19 12:47:08 PM

Jim_Callahan: manimal2878: It is not crying wolf in California, Colorado or NY that they are going to restrict your gun rights and want to implement these same policies federally.


In all fairness, you're really just talking New York CITY, most of the STATE is about as restrictive on guns as, say, Texas.  And NYC is essentially a micromanaging fascist state in general, not just on guns, they regulate random bullshiat like the size of soda you can drink and are now trying to ban advertising completely legal products in the primary places they're sold.

California I guess you've got a point.


The 7 round NY thing is statewide.
 
2013-03-19 12:48:38 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878:

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.

And that's how the GOP manages to get you to vote against your own self interests....


No, that is how the Democrats convince me not to vote for them either.


again, you make my point for me.
 
2013-03-19 12:49:26 PM

Jim_Callahan: manimal2878: It is not crying wolf in California, Colorado or NY that they are going to restrict your gun rights and want to implement these same policies federally.


In all fairness, you're really just talking New York CITY, most of the STATE is about as restrictive on guns as, say, Texas.  And NYC is essentially a micromanaging fascist state in general, not just on guns, they regulate random bullshiat like the size of soda you can drink and are now trying to ban advertising completely legal products in the primary places they're sold.

California I guess you've got a point.


Never been to Utah? Oh, sure, you can buy sixteen guns before breakfast, but try ordering a real beer - 6% (or greater) ABV, 20oz (or more) in a glass.

States and cities do all kinds of stupid shiat. The bulwark against it is supposed to be a well-informed population, but it seems the majority of people in those areas want this type of thing.
 
2013-03-19 12:51:08 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878:

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.

And that's how the GOP manages to get you to vote against your own self interests....


As long as he has his guns he is not worried about policies that remove wage protection to pay tax cuts for the top tier, nor environmental laws that allow for his drinking water to catch fire while removing any recourse against the drilling companies and last but not least who needs health insurance if you got a gun. Amiright?
 
2013-03-19 12:51:38 PM

amiable: So basically what you are saying here is that you are a single issue voter. That's fine, but most folk aren't. The assault weapon ban isn't happening but background checks and gun show loophole closing most likely are. If you can't vote for the Democrat's because of that I don't know what to tell you other than you are quite a bit outside the mainstream on those issues.


I don't really see it as a single issue situation.  I see it as, I expect my candidates to approach issues rationally, based on facts and logic.  That is the single issue that I care about.  I do support background checks and the loophole closing.  I'm fine with those that support that, it is logical.
 
2013-03-19 12:52:33 PM

Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.


Dude, you're in my favorites list for being a sensible person.  But I'm sorry, the GOP are stupid; if they weren't so stupid, they wouldn't have bought into those "polls" stating that Romney would win in a landslide.
 
2013-03-19 12:53:25 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878:

I'm not saying I'm going to vote republican because of the gun thing, I find republicans to largely be disgusting and vile.  But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.

And that's how the GOP manages to get you to vote against your own self interests....


No, that is how the Democrats convince me not to vote for them either.

again, you make my point for me.


Your logic here is retarded.  Because democrats want to ban guns, the GOP has convinced me to vote against my own interests?

That makes no sense.
 
2013-03-19 12:53:40 PM

GiantRex: Weaver95: one of the most glaring weaknesses of the Republican party is they can't (or won't) bother to understand YOUR motivations or psychology.

We have a winner, folks.

It's interesting to note that all of these GOP-produced reports about why they lost the last election cycle contain entirely internal research, i.e. voices and opinions from within the party. Not even once have we seen an effort by the GOP to look for answers outside the party. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do when a party loses an election would be for researchers from the losing party to speak with voters who did not vote for their party and ask those people why they chose to vote the way they did, specifically why they did not vote for them and why they chose some other candidate instead. There's been a little bit of talk about "outreach" from the more progressive voices in the party, but that's mostly about immigration issues so they can try to win over more Hispanic voters. Why has there been no discussion of reaching out to voters who voted against them so they can find out why those voters voted against them?


The excerpts I heard did mention holding focus groups outside the party.  Not saying they'll learn anything from it, but I think they are sort of trying a little.
 
2013-03-19 12:54:08 PM

monoski: As long as he has his guns he is not worried about policies that remove wage protection to pay tax cuts for the top tier, nor environmental laws that allow for his drinking water to catch fire while removing any recourse against the drilling companies and last but not least who needs health insurance if you got a gun. Amiright?


No you are completely incorrect asshole.  Learn to read.
 
2013-03-19 12:55:53 PM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant

stupid.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of stupidity  than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of stupid goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their stupidity and shared stupidity  are stupid  (for the most part).  the stupid bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their stupidity .  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're aren't winning because they, too, are stupid... AND weak.. GOP's stupidity is so stupid , so stupid  that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so stupid , they simply are not capable of changing their stupid approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're stupid .  they KNOW that their too stupid .  But they can't change their stupidity  any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's stupid , they KNOW stupidity ...but they can't help their stupid selves.

/ i am to stupid to be sure, but I think I did this because I am stupid
 
2013-03-19 12:55:55 PM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Stupid just seems to cover most of it the easiest.

I guess what i'm trying to say is - don't underestimate the Republicans.  if they ever get their shiat together, they can make life extremely difficult for the rest of us.  don't assume they're all dumb inbred tea baggers.  understand their psychology and you can use it against them.  one of the most glaring weaknesses of the Republican party is they can't (or won't) bother to understand YOUR motivations or psychology.  that lets you blind side them rather easily.  to most Republican True Believers, if you aren't with them, then you are The Enemy.  you're a 'librul' and 'libruls' are all alike.  the Republicans cannot conceive of a 'librul' protecting the second amendment or being a hunter.  they assume 'libruls' hate all businesses without cause or exception.  they assume corporations will always act in the best interests of this nation and that the GOP leadership is honorable.  And the GOP assumes that deep down everyone in the country is really a conservative christian with values just like themselves.

use those blind spots.  don't try to slug it out with the GOP on ideology, because you can't win that fight.  instead, encourage the GOP to dig in their heels and stick to their ideology even more than they would otherwise.


I agree with that mindset.
 
2013-03-19 12:55:58 PM
manimal2878:

I don't really see it as a single issue situation.  I see it as, I expect my candidates to approach issues rationally, based on facts and logic.  That is the single issue that I care about.  I do support background checks and the loophole closing.  I'm fine with those that support that, it is logical.

But you are not going to agree with every single stance that either party takes, you have to make the rational decision at some point to support the party that best reflects your interests overall or choose not to participate (and forfeit all of your political power).  A small group of democrats is supporting the assault weapon ban, but a larger group realizes this is a mistake and thus are keeping it out of the bill.  You have already stated that you support what is most likely going to get passed (which is being proposed by democrats).   So you are not going to ever vote for a democrat because some members of the caucus had an idea you disagree with, that isn't becoming law even though you think the Republicans are an absolutely terrible party?  How does this make any sense?
 
2013-03-19 12:56:17 PM
manimal2878:
Your logic here is retarded.  Because democrats want to ban guns, the GOP has convinced me to vote against my own interests?

That makes no sense.


*sigh*

no, you are being LIED TOO about what the Democrats want to do about gun violence.  And you won't do your own research or believe there are alternatives.  so you'll vote for a lying scumbag evangelical christian who will raise your taxes, cut his own taxes and help run your job out of the country.  but hey - second amendment right?
 
2013-03-19 12:59:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"


Wasn't the very first line spoken in 'The Godfather': I believe in America?
 
2013-03-19 01:01:00 PM

Rwa2play: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Dude, you're in my favorites list for being a sensible person.  But I'm sorry, the GOP are stupid; if they weren't so stupid, they wouldn't have bought into those "polls" stating that Romney would win in a landslide.


that's arrogance and delusion, not stupidity.
 
2013-03-19 01:01:23 PM

amiable: manimal2878:

  A small group of democrats is supporting the assault weapon ban, but a larger group realizes this is a mistake and thus are keeping it out of the bill.  You have already stated that you support what is most likely going to get passed (which is being proposed by democrats).   So you are not going to ever vote for a democrat because some members of the caucus had an idea you disagree with, that isn't becoming law even though you think the Republicans are an absolutely terrible party?  How does this make any sense?


It doesn't make sense because I didn't say it, you somehow imagined that to be my position.  I don't recall saying I wouldn't vote for any democrat ever.  If it wasn't clear,  I have no problem voting for democrats in general, but I will not vote for a specific candidate that supports weapon bans.
 
2013-03-19 01:01:33 PM

manimal2878: amiable: So basically what you are saying here is that you are a single issue voter. That's fine, but most folk aren't. The assault weapon ban isn't happening but background checks and gun show loophole closing most likely are. If you can't vote for the Democrat's because of that I don't know what to tell you other than you are quite a bit outside the mainstream on those issues.

I don't really see it as a single issue situation.  I see it as, I expect my candidates to approach issues rationally, based on facts and logic.  That is the single issue that I care about.  I do support background checks and the loophole closing.  I'm fine with those that support that, it is logical.


That's what Democrats are working towards, are closing loopholes and improving background checks. Feinstein's assault weapons ban bill is going to die on the vine. I doubt a high capacity mag ban makes it out of committee. If it does, it'll die on the floor.
 
2013-03-19 01:04:36 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: The GOP isn't trying to figure out what went wrong with regards to their communication techniques or fine-tuning their message. Its not about figuring out social media or getting a better ground game. Its all about being able to better fool the voters into voting against their self-interests. Lets see, how can we call the blacks "freeloading n*&&ers" to increase our percentage of the white vote, while simultaneously appealing to the African-American bigots who hate gays? How can we simultaneously let the Hispanics know that they're all dirty illegal Mexicans to us, but they should vote for us because a lot of them are Catholic? How can we call a gay person a f*ggot who is leading the country down the path of moral decline while we tell people how inclusive we are? How can we call everyone who doesn't make $500k/yr a "taker" without getting caught on tape? How can we get the middle class to view the poor as the source of all their problems?


Pretty much.  That MSNBC weekend interview with a Republican strategist pretty much said it all about their reasoning.  He essentially said "The message isn't the problem, just the messengers."

Arraigning the deck chairs on the Titanic and all.
 
2013-03-19 01:05:08 PM

Weaver95: no, you are being LIED TOO about what the Democrats want to do about gun violence


Really?  They don't want to ban certain types of weapons?  They don't want magazine capacity restrictions?  Because, yes, they do.


Weaver95: And you won't do your own research or believe there are alternatives. so you'll vote for a lying scumbag evangelical christian who will raise your taxes, cut his own taxes and help run your job out of the country. but hey - second amendment right?


Stop being emotional scroll back up and actually read what I said.  You are acting like a farking tea-partier, only on the opposite end of the political spectrum building a strawman and getting all hot and bothered about it.
 
2013-03-19 01:08:15 PM

verbaltoxin: That's what Democrats are working towards, are closing loopholes and improving background checks. Feinstein's assault weapons ban bill is going to die on the vine. I doubt a high capacity mag ban makes it out of committee. If it does, it'll die on the floor.


Did Feinstein, declare herself to not be a Democrat at some point in the last few weeks?  Otherwise, there are still democrats that are working on more than just background checks and loopholes.

If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.
 
2013-03-19 01:08:49 PM
manimal2878:

Stop being emotional scroll back up and actually read what I said.  You are acting like a farking tea-partier, only on the opposite end of the political spectrum building a strawman and getting all hot and bothered about it.

i'm being emotional?  scroll back up top this thread for a moment and reconsider what the article under discussion is supposed to be - it's about the GOP post mortum on the election losses and what they can do to fix their problem(s).  And what was your response to that article?  you changed the subject to gun control.  now why would you do that, I wonder?

My earlier point up thread was that the GOP (and those who support them) would change the subject to avoid discussing the reasons for the GOP election failures.  then you come along and what did you do?  changed the subject to a wedge issue.
 
2013-03-19 01:08:52 PM
"Ideologically liberal" is code for "poor & brown".
 
2013-03-19 01:09:13 PM

Weaver95: Rwa2play: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Dude, you're in my favorites list for being a sensible person.  But I'm sorry, the GOP are stupid; if they weren't so stupid, they wouldn't have bought into those "polls" stating that Romney would win in a landslide.

that's arrogance and delusion, not stupidity.


Earlier you said the stupid can be tricked and deceived. Are not many conservatives tricked and deceived into voting against their own interests? How many of them voted away collective bargaining, proportional taxation, funding for Planned Parenthood, and bond measures for schools and roads in the past decade alone? That bears the mark of widespread stupidity, if you ask me.

Later you said the way to beat conservatives is to make them hang themselves by their own rope. Is that not tricking them? What has the Obama administration spent this past year doing, then?

Face it, you said Republicans are stupid.  Republican leaders are deluded too like you stated, but a great many Republican voter is indeed very, very stupid. These are the people who deny the existence of evolution and global warming, and actually agreed with Todd Akin, remember.
 
2013-03-19 01:09:36 PM

manimal2878: Really?  They don't want to ban certain types of weapons?  They don't want magazine capacity restrictions?  Because, yes, they do.


Kinda.  The outright bans are more of a fringe group within the party, with the unfortunate note that one of the nutballs in question happens to sit on a very relevant committee and has little to lose in her home district.

Magazine capacity hard-limit at 10 is regarded as either desirable or a reasonable place to give ground by most of the party, though, yes.

Basically, you're assuming that the Dems walk in lockstep and all have the same set of bullet points kept current by the whip on penalty of primary challenge like the Republicans.  They do not, the Dems are holding power by being the consensus party at the moment so they can't afford to be douchebags about internal factional disagreements.  On many issues there are things that  a democrat wants that it can't be fairly said that  democrats want.
 
2013-03-19 01:10:59 PM
verbaltoxin:
Earlier you said the stupid can be tricked and deceived.

True...but its like this: all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.  don't assume that just because you can trick and mislead someone that they're stupid.
 
2013-03-19 01:13:14 PM

Weaver95: Rwa2play: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Dude, you're in my favorites list for being a sensible person.  But I'm sorry, the GOP are stupid; if they weren't so stupid, they wouldn't have bought into those "polls" stating that Romney would win in a landslide.

that's arrogance and delusion, not stupidity.


Fair point.  Still, the fact that they still keep adhering to the message despite evidence to the contrary doesn't help their cause at all.
 
2013-03-19 01:13:49 PM

tricycleracer: "Ideologically liberal" is code for "poor & brown".


Or the new terminology:  "ethnically challenged".
 
2013-03-19 01:13:58 PM
I was actually thinking on the way in just how many ways the GOP could completely rebrand itself, without reeeealllly changing its core principals tooo far, to get me to vote for them.

Obamacare - Opposed socialized medicine via single payer, public option, or true government run health care and implemented market based reform relying on private businesses. Already a republican win, they should claim it.

Gay marriage - the government has no business in what two consenting adults do and can recognize a two person marriage contract regardless of gender. Will rustle the jimmies of the christian conservatives.

Abortion - the government has no business telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, to include reproductive rights as established by Roe v Wade. Will rustle the jimmes of christian conservatives.

Welfare reform - welfare is an essential safety net that allows individuals to take risks while looking for employment. Rather than a handout, entitlements should be structured into temporary assistance combined with job training programs or assistance in finding employment.

Immigration reform - back of the line policy for those here illegally with no criminal past. Pay fines to reconcile with the fact they broke the law, ackowledge they are contributing members of society and want to be here to work. Expand temporary worker visa program (something in line of what Canada has for temporary agricultural workers). Deport and permanently ban convicted criminals.

Medicare/medicaid - voucher program (i don't agree personally, but its in line with the republican ideals).

social security - roll into 401k/Roth IRA program (i dont agree personally, but again, in line with republican ideals).

drug reform - decriminalize many drugs. Within certain reasonable conditions, there is no government role in what people can put in their bodies.

millitary - reduce involvement in narco-ops in south america and close many overseas posts while maintaining posts in strategic areas (i.e. Germany, Korea, Japan) to allow for force projection. Not much different than current GOP policy.

education - reduce government role in education, reduce the amount of government loans and grants to students (i don't neccessarily agree, but again, in line with republican ideas. there's probably some merit to reducing guarenteed loans though)

Overall I think I can actually imagine a hypothetical Republican party who I may even consider voting for.

It's amazing how far away that party is from the current incarnation of the GOP... and actually, really sad. I'd like to believe American deserves better than this, but I'm not sure that I do...
 
2013-03-19 01:15:58 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878:

Stop being emotional scroll back up and actually read what I said.  You are acting like a farking tea-partier, only on the opposite end of the political spectrum building a strawman and getting all hot and bothered about it.

i'm being emotional?  scroll back up top this thread for a moment and reconsider what the article under discussion is supposed to be - it's about the GOP post mortum on the election losses and what they can do to fix their problem(s).  And what was your response to that article?  you changed the subject to gun control.  now why would you do that, I wonder?

My earlier point up thread was that the GOP (and those who support them) would change the subject to avoid discussing the reasons for the GOP election failures.  then you come along and what did you do?  changed the subject to a wedge issue.


Nice try at a dodge.   But answer my question, do certain democrats want to implement weapon bans and magazine restrictions or not?  You claimed that I was lied to about that, thus implying that I was stupid enough to believe GOP bullshiat.  Unless Feinstein is no longer a Democrat then I was not lied to.  I don't expect you will apologize for that though.

On the other hand you are right, this is a wedge issue.  And my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.
 
2013-03-19 01:18:46 PM
manimal2878:

Nice try at a dodge.   But answer my question, do certain democrats want to implement weapon bans and magazine restrictions or not?  You claimed that I was lied to about that, thus implying that I was stupid enough to believe GOP bullshiat.  Unless Feinstein is no longer a Democrat then I was not lied to.  I don't expect you will apologize for that though.

On the other hand you are right, this is a wedge issue.  And my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.


a 'dodge'?  I'm talking about the actual purpose of this thread - discussing the reasons for the GOP's election season failures and their internal reactions to those failures.  you keep wanting to make this about gun control.

so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?
 
2013-03-19 01:20:15 PM

manimal2878: If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.


Why would they do that?  As long as they're letting it go through committee it:

a. Keeps Feinstein happy, so she won't break ranks from spite
b. Keeps the delusional moonbat types off their back due to the impression they're actually getting what they want
c. Continually baits the right-wingers into saying  the most retarded things imaginable, which is a big plus for the 2014 election cycle.

Basically, you haven't provided any actual reason for them to cut it off early and offend some people instead of letting it die on the floor or in review where it's politically more or less harmless to them.
 
2013-03-19 01:23:08 PM

Jim_Callahan: Basically, you're assuming that the Dems walk in lockstep and all have the same set of bullet points kept current by the whip on penalty of primary challenge like the Republicans. They do not, the Dems are holding power by being the consensus party at the moment so they can't afford to be douchebags about internal factional disagreements. On many issues there are things that a democrat wants that it can't be fairly said that democrats want.


Actually it seems you assumed that I believe a certain thing that I don't.    I don't think democrats walk in lockstep, hence their weakness during so many election cycles.  I never said I wouldn't vote for any Democrat.  I said I won't vote for a specific person that supports bans.

.  Whether it can all be pinned on Feinstein or not for pushing for the less desirable elements of gun control.  It's still a wedge issue that had largely been put to rest except on the fringe of the GOP that was still susceptable to NRA crap.  But now the Democrats have reawakened it and given credibility.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:19 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878:

Stop being emotional scroll back up and actually read what I said.  You are acting like a farking tea-partier, only on the opposite end of the political spectrum building a strawman and getting all hot and bothered about it.

i'm being emotional?  scroll back up top this thread for a moment and reconsider what the article under discussion is supposed to be - it's about the GOP post mortum on the election losses and what they can do to fix their problem(s).  And what was your response to that article?  you changed the subject to gun control.  now why would you do that, I wonder?

My earlier point up thread was that the GOP (and those who support them) would change the subject to avoid discussing the reasons for the GOP election failures.  then you come along and what did you do?  changed the subject to a wedge issue.

Nice try at a dodge.   But answer my question, do certain democrats want to implement weapon bans and magazine restrictions or not?  You claimed that I was lied to about that, thus implying that I was stupid enough to believe GOP bullshiat.  Unless Feinstein is no longer a Democrat then I was not lied to.  I don't expect you will apologize for that though.

On the other hand you are right, this is a wedge issue.  And my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.


Actually, I'd say that it was Aurora, Newtown, Arizona and Chicago that made this an issue, but I get what you're saying.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:34 PM

Weaver95: so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?


I repeat:  my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.

And that was in direct response to your question about what will save the GOP.
 
2013-03-19 01:27:10 PM

Jim_Callahan: manimal2878: If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.

Why would they do that?  As long as they're letting it go through committee it:

a. Keeps Feinstein happy, so she won't break ranks from spite
b. Keeps the delusional moonbat types off their back due to the impression they're actually getting what they want
c. Continually baits the right-wingers into saying  the most retarded things imaginable, which is a big plus for the 2014 election cycle.

Basically, you haven't provided any actual reason for them to cut it off early and offend some people instead of letting it die on the floor or in review where it's politically more or less harmless to them.


Good points, you are right, politically that's the way to go.  The thing is, I shouldn't be called a liar because I take certain members of the democratic party at their word that want to ban guns.
 
2013-03-19 01:30:06 PM

Huggermugger: Philip Francis Queeg: "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"

Wasn't the very first line spoken in 'The Godfather': I believe in America?


Actually, it was, ""I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
 
2013-03-19 01:35:00 PM
manimal2878: verbaltoxin: That's what Democrats are working towards, are closing loopholes and improving background checks. Feinstein's assault weapons ban bill is going to die on the vine. I doubt a high capacity mag ban makes it out of committee. If it does, it'll die on the floor.

Did Feinstein, declare herself to not be a Democrat at some point in the last few weeks?  Otherwise, there are still democrats that are working on more than just background checks and loopholes.

If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.


It's almost like Democrats aren't one, monolithic hivemind or something. Maybe you should understand that. A Democrat from California is going to act differently than one from Montana, Missouri or Tennessee.

The Democratic Party doesn't have a coherent narrative like the Republican Party. It's much more of a coalition with different wings within it, such as Feinstein/Boxer/Pelosi/Waxman making up the liberal, West Coast wing; conservative Blue Dog Democrats from the Midwest and South; and centrists like Barack Obama and Harry Reid.

If there were suddenly no Republican Party tomorrow, the Democratic Party would split among these divisions, forming new liberal and conservative parties, with moderates stuck in the middle.

Gun control is mixed with Midwestern Democrats, and it's unpopular with Mountain West and Southern Democrats. On the national level, this results in Democrats being divided and noncommittal towards gun control. What flies in New York doesn't get off the ground in Wisconsin or Wyoming. What is acceptable in Chicago is verboten in Southern Illinois.

What unifies these Democrats are some basic understandings: that government has to be funded in order to work; that government serves the will of the people, and that will is to have a safety net and wealth redistribution; that the environment must at least be cared for so others can use its resources and enjoy it in the future; and that math and science are real things which contradict our assumptions, and if that makes us uncomfortable, too bad.

You keep saying you're not a single issue voter, but your words say otherwise. Just own up to it already, but admit that Democratic Party is not out to take your guns. The Democrats in California or New York might be, but Democrats elsewhere are divided on it.
 
2013-03-19 01:37:12 PM

verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.


What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.
 
2013-03-19 01:40:20 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?

I repeat:  my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.

And that was in direct response to your question about what will save the GOP.


and again - this isn't about the Democrats, it's about the Republicans.  did you bother to even read the attached article?  seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?  or gun control for that matter.

6 year old child: [breaks vase]
parent:: 'why did you do that?!  that's it, you're getting a time out right now!'
child: 'oh yeah!  wellllll STACY dropped her ICE cream and got away with it!'
parent: 'what does that have to do with anything!?'
child: '....'

sometimes I really do wonder about the ages of people on fark.
 
2013-03-19 01:40:39 PM
RNC autopsy: The anus is unremarkable.

/surely not obscure
 
2013-03-19 01:44:26 PM

manimal2878: verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.

What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.


Perhaps if everyone is misunderstanding you it isn't their failure to understand but yours to communicate.

At this point I don't know what you are trying to say, you started here saying that the Republicans were going to regroup because the Democrats were going to throw the election to them because of their stance on gun control.  When it was pointed out that the actual stance that Democrats are taking is quite popular, and the part that isn't won't even get to the floor you went on a harangue about how you would "never vote for a democrat who supported gun bans."  We managed to tease out of you what that meant (apparently you support background checks and loophole closing) but at that point you are 75-90% in agreement with the democrats so your drama queening about how you will never vote for certain democrats (if they support "gun bans") irrespective of whether or not you  agree with them on every single other issue labels you as either an extreme single issue voter (who really can't be taken very seriously) or as someone trying to change the subject (as pointed out by Weaver).
 
2013-03-19 01:46:33 PM

manimal2878: verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.

What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.


Yes, it's our fault you keep saying, "Yeah I'm liberal, but Democrats want my guns!" and we keep saying, "No, only some Democrats do, and they don't run the party. This issue varies upon region and municipality." Then you circle back to step one and start all over.

So why don't you explain yourself more clearly. F*ckhole.
 
2013-03-19 01:46:37 PM

Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?


Because you said: 

Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


and: 

Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.


And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.
 
2013-03-19 01:47:43 PM

error 303: Obamacare - Opposed socialized medicine via single payer, public option, or true government run health care and implemented market based reform relying on private businesses. Already a republican win, they should claim it.


If they had tried that back when it was being debated in Congress, that might have worked.  They could've all voted for it and claimed that they were successful in defeating the socialist plans that the Democrats had previously suggested.  Instead, they claimed that it was just a socialistical as the other plans, and they voted against it, and have tried to repeal it dozens of times. It would take a great deal of spinning for them to try to claim it now.  I'm picturing that scene from "The Dark Knight Strikes Again" where the Flash is rescued after being forced to spend years running in a giant generator that provides a third of America's electricity.  That's the sort of spin they'll need to claim credit for Obamacare.
 
2013-03-19 01:48:11 PM
yeah manimal thanks for threadjacking

/schwantz
 
2013-03-19 01:48:51 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?

Because you said:  Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

and:  Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.

And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.


Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?
 
2013-03-19 01:50:15 PM

amiable: manimal2878: verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.

What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.

Perhaps if everyone is misunderstanding you it isn't their failure to understand but yours to communicate.

At this point I don't know what you are trying to say, you started here saying that the Republicans were going to regroup because the Democrats were going to throw the election to them because of their stance on gun control.  When it was pointed out that the actual stance that Democrats are taking is quite popular, and the part that isn't won't even get to the floor you went on a harangue about how you would "never vote for a democrat who supported gun bans."  We managed to tease out of you what that meant (apparently you support background checks and loophole closing) but at that point you are 75-90% in agreement with the democrats so your drama queening about how you will never vote for certain democrats (if they support "gun bans") irrespective of whether or not you  agree with them on every single other issue labels you as either an extreme single issue voter (who really can't be taken very seriously) or as someone trying to change the subject (as pointed out by Weaver).


The bolded part seems pretty clear to me.  You guys were the ones that decided it meant I wouldn't vote for any democrat.
 
2013-03-19 01:50:20 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?

Because you said:  Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

and:  Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.

And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.


And even though we explained to you how this might not be the Democrats' undoing, and isn't much of a problem for them at all, you carped on anyway.

Thanks for your concern.
 
2013-03-19 01:51:21 PM

Kittypie070: yeah manimal thanks for threadjacking

/schwantz


hurr durr
 
2013-03-19 01:51:36 PM
Some kid committed suicide yesterday at the college I graduated from. Mom called, said something about "Obamacare is even infecting colleges now"

... I took a few seconds to try to figure out how they could possibly correlate, then I realized who/what I was dealing with and got her off the phone so I could spark up my nicely rolled joint and not give a fark.
 
2013-03-19 01:53:48 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?

Because you said:  Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

and:  Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.

And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.


so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?
 
2013-03-19 01:53:52 PM

manimal2878: But their are tons and tons of liberal gun owners, that aren't going to vote for a democrat that pushes for mag restrictions or weapon bans.


Most gun owners aren't single-issue voters.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:02 PM
Well this thread's f*cked.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?


Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:48 PM

Weaver95: so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?


No.
 
2013-03-19 01:59:37 PM

manimal2878: Weaver95: so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?

No.


But soon as we talk about the mistakes the GOP has made (and continues to make) you change the subject to the Democrats.
 
2013-03-19 02:03:23 PM

Lumpmoose: 59% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage. That's 1% higher than the country as a whole: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-ris e -in-support-for-gay-marriage/


Of course, that's mostly due to "Catholics" who attend church less than once per month. Among those attending more than that (and depending on exact wording), it's nearer 30% support, 50% opposed. Contrariwise... a lot of Hispanic "Catholics" are in that group who seldom attend.

deadsanta: they are right in line with public acceptance of homosexuals


Mostly. More exactly, they tend to be right in line with public disapproval; Hispanics tend a little less supportive on gay marriage, but correspondingly more uncertain.

simplicimus: Buy more, smaller, magazines.


It's not like anything can happen while swapping out the magazine.
 
2013-03-19 02:06:24 PM

Weaver95: so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?


To me the failure of the GOP is that their core message is wrong.  They are the party of the Rich and the ignorant. To get people to vote fore something they have to believe there is something in it for them.  Hence the lie of trickle down economics, protecting them from the lesser races, or the government that wants to enslave you, or is out to destroy your faith and way of life.

Largely shifts in demographics mean the lie about the races is going to work less and less.  People seeing that their wages have been stagnant for 30 years while the CEO's keep getting richer means they are starting to suspect trickle down really is bullshiat.   In the long run there should be no way they can be saved because their very function has been to protect the wealth of the few at the expense of others and that is anathama to what most American's  really believe when their judgement isn't clouded by bullshiat.
 
2013-03-19 02:09:47 PM

Weaver95: But soon as we talk about the mistakes the GOP has made (and continues to make) you change the subject to the Democrats.


 Whatever you are trying to imply is wrong.  Stop being an A-hole about it.
 
2013-03-19 02:18:52 PM

manimal2878: Kittypie070: yeah manimal thanks for threadjacking

/schwantz


hurr durr


No U.
 
2013-03-19 02:26:15 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?

Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.


What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?
 
2013-03-19 02:30:38 PM
Most of America is farther left than the  Democrats. That's a huge chunk of the problem.

/Get. Rid. Of. The. Two. Party. System.
 
2013-03-19 02:40:10 PM

Weaver95: so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?


The people that care about guns only care about guns. It's the only thing in the world they care about. Every thread is about guns. If it's not about guns, they'll make it about guns. It's a literal fetish.
 
2013-03-19 02:46:10 PM
abb3w:
simplicimus: Buy more, smaller, magazines.

It's not like anything can happen while swapping out the magazine.


OK, bring 3 guns.
 
2013-03-19 02:57:13 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?

Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.

What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?


Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant.   It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.
 
2013-03-19 03:09:21 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?

Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.

What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?

Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant.   It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.


There are no swing states in Congressional elections. But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.
 
2013-03-19 03:14:15 PM

Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.

Cry wolf about what?

everything.  abortions, gun control, socialized medicine, Iran, the war on terror, the war on drugs, illegal aliens, the economy, socialism...the list goes on and on.  every time the GOP needs to motivate the troops they make wild claims about one of their grab bag of wedge issues.  But it's starting to become less effective.  people aren't reaching the necessary levels of outrage any more.


Well many of them realized they were misled/lied to by Fox News in 2012

Sure the true believers will stick to the path, but that's only part of the audience
 
2013-03-19 03:14:22 PM

verbaltoxin: Are not many conservatives tricked and deceived into voting against their own interests? How many of them voted away collective bargaining, proportional taxation, funding for Planned Parenthood, and bond measures for schools and roads in the past decade alone? That bears the mark of widespread stupidity, if you ask me.


That's actually not so much stupidity, as misplaced values. They think those things are bad, and accept that they may suffer some short-term personal inconvenience for a larger and longer-term social good; and higher intelligence allows increased ability to rationalize doing so.

Moral depravity, perhaps; along with misplaced trust.

Rwa2play: Still, the fact that they still keep adhering to the message despite evidence to the contrary doesn't help their cause at all.


Confusing "delusion" for "stupidity" doesn't help their treatment.

error 303: Overall I think I can actually imagine a hypothetical Republican party who I may even consider voting for.


You sound Libertarian.

manimal2878: I repeat: my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.


Since, at this point, the polling indicates support for some proposals that the Democrats are backing (such as universal background checks) is phenomenally higher (circa 4:1) than for GOP opposition, I think your thesis that the net effect is "helping out the GOP" needs more supporting evidence.

verbaltoxin: The Democratic Party doesn't have a coherent narrative like the Republican Party. It's much more of a coalition with different wings within it, such as Feinstein/Boxer/Pelosi/Waxman making up the liberal, West Coast wing; conservative Blue Dog Democrats from the Midwest and South; and centrists like Barack Obama and Harry Reid.


It's actually true of both major parties; there's also clustering within the "Independents". (There's probably similar sub-factions of the Greens and Libertarians, too small to detect in nationally-proportionate statistical samples.)
 
2013-03-19 03:16:38 PM

simplicimus: OK, bring 3 guns.


Also works less well in practice than in the movies.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.


I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.
 
2013-03-19 03:33:54 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.


Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.
 
2013-03-19 03:37:32 PM
Philip Francis Queeg:
There are no swing states in Congressional elections. But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

PS you are wrong:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-demo c rats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/
 
2013-03-19 03:39:33 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.


No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.
 
2013-03-19 03:41:23 PM
manimal2878:

You claim to be rational, but you are extremely emotional on the single issue of gun control

It is so important to you that it overrides any other political issue

You have apparently bought into the NRA paranoia that a local or federal agency having a record of gun owners means they will one day invade your home and take away all your toys.

When someone points out the logical inconsistencies in your belief, you reach for the (emotional) insult-and-abuse response.

Part of what this thread is about (well the early bit anyway) was whether the GOP base is stupid or mentally ill, because they are unable to see past their (emotionally-based) prejudices and to recognize what the rest of the electorate regard as fair and reasonable.

You could perhaps consider how that applies to you.
 
2013-03-19 03:42:39 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.


You directly said  to me that you knew nothing about the issue, cared nothing about the issue and are not concerned about the issue.
 
2013-03-19 03:50:46 PM

mjjt: manimal2878:

You claim to be rational, but you are extremely emotional on the single issue of gun control

It is so important to you that it overrides any other political issue

You have apparently bought into the NRA paranoia that a local or federal agency having a record of gun owners means they will one day invade your home and take away all your toys.

When someone points out the logical inconsistencies in your belief, you reach for the (emotional) insult-and-abuse response.

Part of what this thread is about (well the early bit anyway) was whether the GOP base is stupid or mentally ill, because they are unable to see past their (emotionally-based) prejudices and to recognize what the rest of the electorate regard as fair and reasonable.

You could perhaps consider how that applies to you.


I'm not emotional at all.  It doesn't override every issue as I already said.  I think the NRA is full of shiat, which I also already said.  In fact why are you even introducing the strawman that I believe their bullshiat?

The only thing logical inconsistencies people have pointed out are the illogical consistencies of a position I don't hold.

My opinion is not emotionally based so your implication that I am stupid or mentally ill like the GOP is unfounded.  Keep reading the thread and you can see exactly why I think the GOP is failing.  Stop assuming my position and thoughts from the one post you read.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.

You directly said  to me that you knew nothing about the issue, cared nothing about the issue and are not concerned about the issue.


No, I said I don't know or care what single issue would bring a en masse swell of support for the GOP and that thinking about that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.  Here I'll quote it for you:

Philip Francis Queeg: What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?

Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant. It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.
 
2013-03-19 04:00:04 PM

manimal2878: monoski: As long as he has his guns he is not worried about policies that remove wage protection to pay tax cuts for the top tier, nor environmental laws that allow for his drinking water to catch fire while removing any recourse against the drilling companies and last but not least who needs health insurance if you got a gun. Amiright?

No you are completely incorrect asshole.  Learn to read.


Your sarcasm meter appears to be broken
 
2013-03-19 04:03:20 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.

You directly said  to me that you knew nothing about the issue, cared nothing about the issue and are not concerned about the issue.

No, I said I don't know or care what single issue would bring a en masse swell of support for the GOP and that thinking about that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.  Here I'll quote it for you:

Philip Francis Queeg: What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?

Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant. It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.


So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them? Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence?
 
2013-03-19 04:07:14 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them?

This.

Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence? Not This.
 
2013-03-19 04:11:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them? Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence?


Let me clarify, I'm am not saying democrats need to do anything.   I was just pointing out how the gun issue could be the one thing that helps the GOP avoid the deathblow for another election cycle.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:33 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them? Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence?

Let me clarify, I'm am not saying democrats need to do anything.   I was just pointing out how the gun issue could be the one thing that helps the GOP avoid the deathblow for another election cycle.


So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?
 
2013-03-19 04:18:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?


First what is their position?
 
2013-03-19 04:22:25 PM
Philip Francis Queeg:
So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?

If the position is to ban guns or limit magazines to an arbitrary number less than design standard then it's because it's not logical nor will it be effective.

If the position is to close loopholes and improve background checks, then, hell yes they need to distinguish themselves from the republicans.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:11 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg:
So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?

If the position is to ban guns or limit magazines to an arbitrary number less than design standard then it's because it's not logical nor will it be effective.

If the position is to close loopholes and improve background checks, then, hell yes they need to distinguish themselves from the republicans.


But why are guns unique amongst all issues in that taking a position that you believe to be illogical and inefffective will spell doom at the ballot box for Democrats?
 
2013-03-19 04:30:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: But why are guns unique amongst all issues in that taking a position that you believe to be illogical and inefffective will spell doom at the ballot box for Democrats?


Oh ok, I see what you are saying.  Because there is such a thing as liberal gun owners, there is not really such a thing as a liberal that also hates gay people, or a liberal that hates black people, or a liberal that hates the poor, etc.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:52 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But why are guns unique amongst all issues in that taking a position that you believe to be illogical and inefffective will spell doom at the ballot box for Democrats?

Oh ok, I see what you are saying.  Because there is such a thing as liberal gun owners, there is not really such a thing as a liberal that also hates gay people, or a liberal that hates black people, or a liberal that hates the poor, etc.


And there are no conservatives who favor increased gun controls in your opinion? There are no liberals who would angered if the Democrats refused to make gun violence an issue?
 
2013-03-19 04:44:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: And there are no conservatives who favor increased gun controls in your opinion? There are no liberals who would angered if the Democrats refused to make gun violence an issue?


Sure there are conservatives that favor increased gun control and  sure there are liberals that would be mad if the democrats didn't make it an issue, but neither is relevant.  They are not relevant because they would have no personal stake in the outcome only ideological investment, either way they don't gain or lose anything personally, and would not be mobilized enough to let it change their voting behavior the way that somebody that would personally be affected would be.
 
2013-03-19 04:50:14 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: And there are no conservatives who favor increased gun controls in your opinion? There are no liberals who would angered if the Democrats refused to make gun violence an issue?

Sure there are conservatives that favor increased gun control and  sure there are liberals that would be mad if the democrats didn't make it an issue, but neither is relevant.  They are not relevant because they would have no personal stake in the outcome only ideological investment, either way they don't gain or lose anything personally, and would not be mobilized enough to let it change their voting behavior the way that somebody that would personally be affected would be.


I think you are completely wrong when you think that people in favor of gun control and who are concerned about gun violence have no personal stake in the issue, and that they cannot be mobilized by it. Many of those people feel very strongly that they have a personal stake in the form of the lives and safety of their loved ones.

If you theory was abortion would never mobilize men to political action, nor homosexual rights motivate heterosexual. Yet both those issue have been amongst the most effective at mobilizing groups that appear to have no direct stake in the issue.
 
2013-03-19 04:58:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I think you are completely wrong when you think that people in favor of gun control and who are concerned about gun violence have no personal stake in the issue, and that they cannot be mobilized by it.


So if Democrats don't succeed in their gun control efforts are you going to stop voting for them?
 
2013-03-19 05:05:03 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: I think you are completely wrong when you think that people in favor of gun control and who are concerned about gun violence have no personal stake in the issue, and that they cannot be mobilized by it.

So if Democrats don't succeed in their gun control efforts are you going to stop voting for them?


If they don't succeed? Probably not. If they don't try? My votes in the primaries will probably be significantly different.

If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?
 
2013-03-19 05:09:11 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?


I've already answered that.
 
2013-03-19 05:14:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So yeah, is there any doubt left that the GOP is going to experience a schism and we'll have a hard right third party running against them?


I'd LIKE there to be a schism. I've always felt that the TEA party would be happier as its own party than as a barnacle on the ass of the Republicans. The trouble is, the Republican party is too afraid of losing what few voters it has to take a chance on changing the message and attracting more voters.

Let's pretend that the hard-right Republican voter is a loud, obnoxious, gun-waving bigot with a Confederate flag plastered just above his truck nuts. The establishment Republican thinks to itself, "Well, he's a complete idiot, but at least he's voting for me." Unfortunately, by associating himself with Yosemite Sam, he's costing voters from the other side. Scraping off this one lunatic might reward him with ten votes from the center, but since it isn't guaranteed, the Republican can't take that chance. He ALREADY doesn't have enough support on a national level. All the Republican can see is "The number of votes I got minus that guy," rather than "The number of votes I got minus that guy, plus the votes I get for no longer associating with that guy."

For Republican math, a schism means "We only got 47% of the vote in the last election; now you want us to get 23.5%? How does that win elections?"

We'll know what they've decided in 2016 - if the frontrunning candidate spends the entire primary swimming in derp, then staggers back to the center with all that baggage for the general, we'll know they haven't learned a damned thing. If the frontrunner in the primary targets the center, we'll know they're done with the TEA party.
 
2013-03-19 05:15:06 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?

I've already answered that.


So let's be clear, you would vote for Sarah Palin if she ran against a Democrat who supported gun control based solely on that issue?
 
2013-03-19 05:21:31 PM

dr_blasto: Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.

At what point does all the delusional, arrogant and obstinate become stupid? The Republican Party has been advocating non-functional policies for DECADES. We know their trickle-down bullshiat doesn't work, we know they are farking horrible on personal freedom issues. We know they no longer even offer practical policy in any arena. If they don't know this, they are stupid-plain and simple. Either their supporters are stupid or the leadership is stupid or both.

If they know these things yet continue to make them core planks of their platform, they are what? Trolls? Suicidal? Is the party made up of stupid not-so-rich people and greedy-yet-smart rich people? What of the ...


I'm guessing Weav is claiming that the GOP knows trickle-down is wrong, that family planning is a money saving thing for society and the government, that a progressive tax structure is not only more fair, but will actually generate more income for everyone, including the upper 1%. But they can't because they chose the path of righteousness, so they can't show compromise or wavering. Then, when the 1%'ers came and asked for tax cuts using the ruse of trickle-down, they agreed because the short-term pay-off of cash for campaigning was worth it. Same goes with the theocracy side of the equation. The GOP accepted the fundamentalists because they provided a large number of voters. Now, they have to maintain harping about the legitimacy of rape and whether they believe in evolution. They can't change, even if they (well, some of them) know better.

The crux of the matter is that the GOP runs on a top-down totalitarian structure. They demand and require obedience. They don't have the numbers, so they only way they can win is through general ennui and them coming out in force during that moment to capture seats (see 2010 election). They create ennui through confusing the public. Soon after Obama's election, somehow or another the whole economic collapse of 2009 was burdened onto Obama as if it was "Obama's depression". The Iraq war became "Obama's Iraq War" and so on. They create confusion to make people think twice about voting. And when people have to think twice, they decide to forego the voting altogether. At that moment, they get the rallying cry to get people there. In 2010, they used the "Tea Party" tactic because it was clear at that time the "GOP" brand was totally trashed by GW Bush. They created a new astroturfed party, the Tea Party, which, in policy, is identical or more right than the GOP. That alone added a significant number of people into the cause.

But the root of all, again, is their inability to compromise. Their very raison d'etre is to be firm and solid. The mighty oak tree. Well, the negative is that if you pick the wrong position and you can't compromise yourself out of it, you're doomed. And doom is what we're seeing with the GOP.
 
2013-03-19 05:27:29 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?

I've already answered that.

So let's be clear, you would vote for Sarah Palin if she ran against a Democrat who supported gun control based solely on that issue?


If read my answers from before you would know your question is absurd.
 
2013-03-19 05:32:08 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?

I've already answered that.

So let's be clear, you would vote for Sarah Palin if she ran against a Democrat who supported gun control based solely on that issue?

If read my answers from before you would know your question is absurd.


You would just chose not to vote for a Democrat who you agreed with on every other issue than guns even if they were running against Sarah Palin. Is that a more accurate summation of your position?
 
2013-03-19 05:42:30 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?


No.
 
2013-03-19 05:44:19 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?

No.


How was that any different than your statement:

But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.
 
2013-03-19 05:51:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?

No.

How was that any different than your statement:

But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.



I would do the same as you: 

Philip Francis Queeg: My votes in the primaries will probably be significantly different.

 
2013-03-19 05:53:21 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?

No.

How was that any different than your statement:

But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.


I would do the same as you:  Philip Francis Queeg: My votes in the primaries will probably be significantly different.


That's a considerable qualification on your earlier statement.

And in the General? would you still refuse to vote for any Democrat based solely on a disagreement on gun control?
 
2013-03-19 06:00:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: That's a considerable qualification on your earlier statement.

And in the General? would you still refuse to vote for any Democrat based solely on a disagreement on gun control?


And yours is an impossible hypothetical.  Palin will never be the choice vs any democrat in a general.

If it was somebody like her vs a gun ban democrat.  I would hope there would be an independent like Charlie Christ and would vote that way if I didn't want to vote democrat and I wouldn't feel bad about it.
 
2013-03-19 06:03:16 PM

manimal2878: it was somebody like her vs a gun ban democrat. I would hope there would be an independent like Charlie Christ and would vote that way if I didn't want to vote democrat and I wouldn't feel bad about it.


Though I guess he is a democrat now so...  yeah, your hypothetical doesn't apply.
 
2013-03-19 06:05:30 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: That's a considerable qualification on your earlier statement.

And in the General? would you still refuse to vote for any Democrat based solely on a disagreement on gun control?

And yours is an impossible hypothetical.  Palin will never be the choice vs any democrat in a general.

If it was somebody like her vs a gun ban democrat.  I would hope there would be an independent like Charlie Christ and would vote that way if I didn't want to vote democrat and I wouldn't feel bad about it.


Charlie Christ supports an assault weapons ban. You have now vowed to never vote for him no matter how many other issues you agree with him on.
 
2013-03-19 06:58:09 PM

manimal2878: They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.


guys
guys hey guys
i'm a democrat just like you but i'm concerned about this gun issue
guys
i'm very concerned
hey guys
very very very concerned
guys hey
but i'm just like you i just have all the concerns
guys

This message was brought to you by the NRA: What, us desperately resorting to trolling FARK threads?
 
2013-03-19 07:04:37 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So yeah, is there any doubt left that the GOP is going to experience a schism and we'll have a hard right third party running against them?


To be honest, I really don't know anymore.

Here we have the GOP stuck riding the tiger of white male resentment. They know its a losing issue, but the moment they try to get off the tiger primaries them and replaces them with legitimate rape.

Then you have Greece with a not insignificant portion of the populace voting for fascists. Italy's last election saw a massive surge by a 'party' running on a Monty Brewster platform. I'm pretty sure the same thing just happened in Israel too. Hungary just voted in a constitutional amendment shoving the supreme court out of the way.

I'm starting to wonder if we're just now passing through the looking glass of global market democracy, and we're back at square one in understanding just what the fark is going to happen next.
 
2013-03-19 07:05:16 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

guys
guys hey guys
i'm a democrat just like you but i'm concerned about this gun issue
guys
i'm very concerned
hey guys
very very very concerned
guys hey
but i'm just like you i just have all the concerns
guys

This message was brought to you by the NRA: What, us desperately resorting to trolling FARK threads?


You really nailed it. Maybe try more time reading the thread and less trying to be clever.
 
2013-03-19 07:10:59 PM

manimal2878: You really nailed it. Maybe try more time reading the thread and less trying to be clever.


I did read it. Your concern is duly noted.
 
2013-03-19 07:23:10 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: You really nailed it. Maybe try more time reading the thread and less trying to be clever.

I did read it. Your concern is duly noted.


As is the fact you are an asshole.
 
2013-03-19 07:26:17 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.


"Circle jerk"?  (sigh...)  you people are so unoriginal.  Can't you come up with a better insult than that?  I mean, it's become an actual boilerplate on Reddit to whine about anything other than a Fox link being a liberal Circle Jerk, and I was really hoping that it wouldn't infest Fark.
 
2013-03-19 07:31:56 PM

Huggermugger: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.

"Circle jerk"?  (sigh...)  you people are so unoriginal.  Can't you come up with a better insult than that?  I mean, it's become an actual boilerplate on Reddit to whine about anything other than a Fox link being a liberal Circle Jerk, and I was really hoping that it wouldn't infest Fark.


Well, maybe, try not to pile on and accuse people of being concern trolls or tear them for expressing a viewpoint you disagree with and will seem less like you just want to stroke each other off.
 
2013-03-19 08:09:24 PM
 Weaver95: no, they're not

What if they're actually super geniuses and the whole lurch to the hard right is part of a multi decade strategy to get the US to where it is now...

The GOP has pulled the whole country (including the democrats) so far to the right that the 'left' is implementing GOP policies.

You yourself used to be an example of a dyed in the wool conservative on this site, but you were part of the campaign to re-elect Obama, (who IMHO fills most of the 'conservative' niches of the 80's and 90's. Hell, so did Bill Clinton!) mostly out of a fear that a Republican victory would result in a level of neuveau-conservatism that was so far beyond the pale even you balked.

What if there was a decision made in the 80's to change the whole of American society into a Reaganesque utopia, and this is the result? I mean, really, how different is Obama's America from Reagan's? Apart from lower taxes, more military spending and greater corporate control of everything of course...all as the result of the right going so batshiat crazy that everyone sidled a bit to the right where stuff looked a little less insane in comparison...

kinda like a giant overton window aimed at the entire society...
 
2013-03-19 08:33:12 PM

simplicimus: Pistol grips on rifles are basically cosmetic, not intrinsic to functionality.


I've been meaning to ask someone this; if that's the case, then why did the militaries across the globe adopt assault weapons with pistol grips? Why, if it's not an improvement, if it doesn't make the rifle more efficient, is it there? it must add complexity to the design and manufacturing process, it must use ever so slightly more resources to put one on, so why bother?

I contend that it does make the rifle easier to wield and it does make it more efficient to use and hit lots of targets with it with less training (I have no idea, I've only ever shot a regular bolt action rifle).
 
2013-03-19 09:05:01 PM

dr_blasto: At what point does all the delusional, arrogant and obstinate become stupid? The Republican Party has been advocating non-functional policies for DECADES. We know their trickle-down bullshiat doesn't work, we know they are farking horrible on personal freedom issues. We know they no longer even offer practical policy in any arena. If they don't know this, they are stupid-plain and simple. Either their supporters are stupid or the leadership is stupid or both.


Delusional, arrogant and obstinate IS stupid, as far as I'm concerned. If they know it and know they need to change and won't or can't because they're wedded to pure ideology, or to keep their fringe elements happy, or "because", then they're stupid. Or, if you prefer, delusional, arrogant and obstinate. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then stupidity is insisting everyone do it your way because you don't want to change what you're doing.
 
2013-03-19 10:19:56 PM
How about "Your social policies are reprehensible and your economic policies are delusional."
 
2013-03-19 11:24:19 PM
And this has been your manimal thread for today, folks.

Tune in next time for more completely going-off-on-a-tangent fun from guess who.
 
2013-03-19 11:42:17 PM

Kittypie070: And this has been your manimal thread for today, folks.

Tune in next time for more completely going-off-on-a-tangent fun from guess who.


Yeah right, like you could even name one other thread I have been in without googling.  I'm not that noticeable.
 
2013-03-20 04:31:25 AM
manimal2878: waaaaaaaaahhhhh, mean kitty!!
 
2013-03-20 04:53:44 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.


Honestly, if you were running for office where I live, I'd vote for you and volunteer for your campaign.
 
2013-03-20 05:20:16 AM

Foundling: 1. Focus on rewarding work (I do not mean an A+ for participation) and encouraging the success of businesses with less than 50 employees.

2. Quit telling Americans how to live. "Freedom" does not include the right to own people.

3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.

If both parties hate me for these ideas, then good.


As someone who has spent significant time looking for work, I would wholeheartedly support this idea. With the caveat that the welfare is actually increased to enough for a person to live on reasonably. Not sure what it's like there, but it literally wasn't worth the hassle for me to be on welfare here, and I'm in Canada. It's more time and cost effective to find one odd job every other week. Shoveling dirt, snow removal, lawn cutting, whatever I could find. Downside was the months at a time where I just couldn't find a damned thing. $180 to live for a month? The hell?
 
2013-03-20 05:21:32 AM

LavenderWolf: Foundling: 1. Focus on rewarding work (I do not mean an A+ for participation) and encouraging the success of businesses with less than 50 employees.

2. Quit telling Americans how to live. "Freedom" does not include the right to own people.

3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.

If both parties hate me for these ideas, then good.

As someone who has spent significant time looking for work, I would wholeheartedly support this idea. With the caveat that the welfare is actually increased to enough for a person to live on reasonably. Not sure what it's like there, but it literally wasn't worth the hassle for me to be on welfare here, and I'm in Canada. It's more time and cost effective to find one odd job every other week. Shoveling dirt, snow removal, lawn cutting, whatever I could find. Downside was the months at a time where I just couldn't find a damned thing. $180 to live for a month? The hell?


Postscript: I have two jobs now, and have been employed consistently for over a year. Even though it's killing me and I've lost a dangerous amount of weight. Don't want to be unemployed again.
 
2013-03-20 02:38:46 PM

Weaver95: no, they're not.


Yes they are. The fact that they know they've painted themselves in a corner doesn't change the fact that they were stupid enough to paint themselves into a corner in the first place.
 
2013-03-21 12:06:07 AM
So first you surround yourself with people who are paid to tell you what you want to hear, and you lose the election.

Then you pay some other people to tell you the truth about what went wrong, and you tell everyone they are full of crap and ignore what they say.

BRILLIANT!
 
Displayed 247 of 247 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report