This is the GOP polling graph for the presidential candidates. What does this tell you about Republican voters this election?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2011%2F12%2F22%2FNational-Economy%2FImages%2F2011%2520charts%2520goprace.jpg&hash=b11e800c1ac8a2b736d88d1f750b9b1912bbf854)
:icon_yikes:
LOL :laugh:
Looks like the path that shoppers take at Wal-Mart...at first running straight to the store, but once inside, attracted to random things.
That's not a GOP poll, it's an EKG of Michelle Bachman's brain! :icon_google:
That graph looks like that because NONE of those candidates has told me anything! Looks like "Survey says" agrees with me.
Joelene
Quote from: juliekins on December 30, 2011, 09:39:27 AM
That's not a GOP poll, it's an EKG of Michelle Bachman's brain! :icon_google:
I think you mean EEG (electroencephalogram)
EKG (actually ECG, electrocardiogram) measures the heart.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 01, 2012, 12:33:09 PM
I think you mean EEG (electroencephalogram)
EKG (actually ECG, electrocardiogram) measures the heart.
Then it can't be either :).
None of them are really serious, except the one guy from last time, and no one likes him. But it's a hell of a line up. Wada' ya got? Well we have a one term senator (and really it's HARD to lose once you get in) from Pennsylvania who is weird in major league ways. Not the least of which is that he's actually serious that he could be president. Two - count 'em, TWO - congress critters who have never won a statewide election, and represent some pretty weird people. Ex gov, ex ambassador, ex a lot of things, but he doesn't matter, he's not crazy enough? How 'bout a three times married guy running on family values? Oh we got him, guess he got over that whole 'resigned in disgrace thing.' Pizza anyone, and get the pizza maker to go fetch Trump too, we all need a good laugh.
How crazy train is it? Sara Palin didn't run, proving herself the sanest one in the bunch. Chew on that for a while.
And Mitt Romney can make a big deal (and DOES, he really DOES) about 'not being a professional politician'. But that's only because he keeps on losing. Had he won all those offices he's run for, he would be a huge professional politician.
Quote from: tekla on January 01, 2012, 01:14:35 PMHow 'bout a three times married guy running on family values?
It's standard that the people who profess morality with the loudest voice are the quickest to not practice any.
They (GOP) may as well vote Democratic for the presidential race (or abstain from voting). Four more years under Obama might produce a better GOP candidate when the time comes.
Four more years under Obama might produce a better GOP candidate when the time comes.
Only if they get serious and do a real purge. But so long as the values voters/tea party/evangelicals/cultural conservatives are all over there, then this is exactly what you'll see again next time (minus the racial hate that Obama has somehow stirred up). Being right is nice, but the business of political parties is not to be right, it's to get elected.
Quote from: tekla on January 01, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
And Mitt Romney can make a big deal (and DOES, he really DOES) about 'not being a professional politician'. But that's only because he keeps on losing.
Yeah, but when you look at what he was really good at with his expertise in leveraged buyouts and corporate raiding - stealing from the poor and giving to the rich - you realize he at least has some promise as a professional politician.
I think a lot of it reflects the Anyone But Romney crowd's continued failures to find their Great White Hope. They really seem to hate him. I'm seriously wondering if the Republican nominee might not end up being someone who isn't even running right now.
I'd really like to be a fly on the wall and hear what the GOP think tank actually has to say about Romney. I'd love to really know why they hate him so much.
That poll graph also tells me the anyone but Romney attitude attracts the opportunists in a big way, even when they haven't a clue about anything remotely close to what skills it takes to be the president. I think that's why we've seen so many front runners. The new guy steps in, everyone runs to support him, they find out what he's really about and they run to another not-Romney candidate. Repeat.
What would Sigmund Freud say about this? :eusa_think:
Many evangelicals don't like Romney because he is Mormon and they think Mormonism is a cult unlike their own religion which I sort of find to be a cult. Others don't trust him because they aren't sure where he sits in the political spectrum. He has been a bit of a chameleon on social and economic issues. Of all the Republicans running, he probably has the best chance to win because he will be perceived by independents as more moderate and probably has less skeletons in his closet.
Quote from: Julie Marie on December 29, 2011, 01:06:40 PM
This is the GOP polling graph for the presidential candidates. What does this tell you about Republican voters this election?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2011%2F12%2F22%2FNational-Economy%2FImages%2F2011%2520charts%2520goprace.jpg&hash=b11e800c1ac8a2b736d88d1f750b9b1912bbf854)
What that graph says is that no consensus has developed, at this point in time, on who their nominee is going to be.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 01, 2012, 09:04:04 PM
Yeah, but when you look at what he was really good at with his expertise in leveraged buyouts and corporate raiding - stealing from the poor and giving to the rich - you realize he at least has some promise as a professional politician.
Pabulum
Quote from: tekla on January 01, 2012, 07:25:38 PM
Four more years under Obama might produce a better GOP candidate when the time comes.
Only if they get serious and do a real purge. But so long as the values voters/tea party/evangelicals/cultural conservatives are all over there, then this is exactly what you'll see again next time (minus the racial hate that Obama has somehow stirred up). Being right is nice, but the business of political parties is not to be right, it's to get elected.
Practicing Catholics, who certainly fit your criteria of "values voters" and "cultural conservatives," have long been a Democrat constituency.
Four more years of Obama will destroy the country.
What that graph says is that no consensus has developed, at this point in time, on who their nominee is going to be.
You are clearly under the delusion that somehow 'the people' or even 'Republican voters' pick the nominee, they don't. There is no legal binding for any primary votes in any state. These are in essence (as well as in fact) private groups acting privately. The sitting members of the Republican Central Committees pick the nominee, and it's been a done deal for a long time now. THE FIX IS IN. They are going to pick the guy who is the most like them, ie: the richest white guy in the room who's been waiting the longest, and that's Mitt. It's always been Mitt. The entire process is structured in just that way.
pabulum
n.
1. A substance that gives nourishment; food.
2. Insipid intellectual nourishment
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2012, 04:16:42 PM
What that graph says is that no consensus has developed, at this point in time, on who their nominee is going to be.
You are clearly under the delusion that somehow 'the people' or even 'Republican voters' pick the nominee, they don't. There is no legal binding for any primary votes in any state. These are in essence (as well as in fact) private groups acting privately. The sitting members of the Republican Central Committees pick the nominee, and it's been a done deal for a long time now. THE FIX IS IN. They are going to pick the guy who is the most like them, ie: the richest white guy in the room who's been waiting the longest, and that's Mitt. It's always been Mitt. The entire process is structured in just that way.
I think your are being a little too jaded. The primary election process was a "progressive" reform from the early 1900's to circumvent the so-called smoke-filled room(s) of state and national conventions. The parties control the specifics of the primary process, but in those states where a caucus, open primary, or closed primary exists, the people do, indeed, have considerable say. (Keeping in mind, of course, that the actual
distribution of state delegates follows the Party's rules - which is how Obama got the Democrat nomination, although Hillary Clinton got more actual votes in the process.)
As I recall, four years ago Gov. Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus. He was not the eventual nominee. 12 years ago, George W Bush lost New Hampshire (to McCain), and was not the richest guy in the race (that was Forbes). Primary elections and caucuses are "binding" in some cases - it depends on state laws.
The process applies to Democrats as well as Republicans. I contend we will see a winnowing process between now and February 5th (Super Tuesday), when there will only be two or three candidates still standing. Ron Paul will run a quixotic, Jerry Brown-type (who I once supported) primary candidacy until he has to focus on his own House seat.
Quote from: Felix on January 03, 2012, 05:15:11 PM
pabulum
n.
1. A substance that gives nourishment; food.
2. Insipid intellectual nourishment
More to the point - bland, tasteless, baby food.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 01, 2012, 12:33:09 PM
I think you mean EEG (electroencephalogram)
EKG (actually ECG, electrocardiogram) measures the heart.
Her EEG may flatline.
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2012, 04:16:42 PM
THE FIX IS IN.
That is only partially true. The backroom guys have their own reasons for wanting different people. And those "guys" have many competing interests and constituencies. But the party operatives, for the most part, just want to win the election. And none of the other candidates other than Romney have demonstrated a working combination of charisma, intelligence, and a somewhat workable ideology to be able to reasonably expect to win a general election. I'm not suggesting that Romney is an amazing candidate but he seems to be the best in the pack for winning the election. Many people have a Huntsman fantasy but he failed to put together an organization and campaign that could draw in more than single digits. All the other candidates pretty much have no chance although Newt might have done well in some debates with Obama because of his wonky approach. But he has a lot of other baggage to overcome.
Moreover, it makes sense that a conservative party would tend to go with someone who has been around for awhile. The last thing people in a conservative party would want, almost by definition, would be an unknown who shakes things up too much. And Romney's inconsistency has made it hard for people to support him.
Establishment people always try to fix things in their favor. They don't always have full control of the process but they clearly do have an advantage.
In the end, the voters have to vote in the primaries. They don't love Romney but they don't appear to feel like there is a good alternative. This race would have changed instantly if someone like Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie would have run. I suspect the establishment and a whole bunch of mainstream Republicans would have jumped in immediately on a Daniels candidacy.
I am not jaded, but I did work in several Iowa campaigns. And the 'winner' in this is going to get a highly-paid job at Faux News and a book deal, the 'loser' gets to face Obama.
Why do you think that people like Christy and Danials (and plenty of other 'smarter' 'Pubs) didn't run? I'll bet because they are looking at the same things that I am, and those numbers are going to make it really hard for any real person to actually run against, and beat, Obama.
Tomorrow, when the red, white and blue clown car heads off to South Carolina and New Hampshire all of those offices will close down. But tomorrow Obama will still have 8 full time offices up and running in Iowa. BO already has over $60,000,000 in his fund and he hasn't even really started to raise money yet. He'll have ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, before the convention. That's going to be real hard to raise late in the game, particular for a candidate who is not exactly setting the base on fire. It's going to be even harder if the 'Pubs seem to be running a loser (and that's most of them). 80% of the money for either party comes from the same sources - largely corporate money - who give to both sides so that no matter wins, they win. And that's not jaded, that's just good business.
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2012, 08:31:45 PM
Why do you think that people like Christy and Danials (and plenty of other 'smarter' 'Pubs) didn't run? I'll bet because they are looking at the same things that I am, and those numbers are going to make it really hard for any real person to actually run against, and beat, Obama.
It is usually hard to unseat an incumbent. In the last 100 years Wilson did with the help of Theodore Roosevelt. FDR did it in the midst of the Depression. Reagan did it during the Carter malaise days. Clinton did it with the help of Perot and a weak economy.
So the career minded cautious politician usually won't run if he wants a real stab at the presidency. Daniels doesn't appear to be an egomaniac like many of these people. Or he might have told the truth that his family doesn't want him to run.
Obama has a good chance to win if the economy recovers at all. He probably has a much better chance to win if he can get Hillary on the ticket with him. if the GOP turns out to be a lock on the House and the Senate then some moderates will vote for Obama to keep the government from having one party control.
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2012, 08:31:45 PM
I am not jaded, but I did work in several Iowa campaigns. And the 'winner' in this is going to get a highly-paid job at Faux News and a book deal, the 'loser' gets to face Obama.
Why do you think that people like Christy and Danials (and plenty of other 'smarter' 'Pubs) didn't run? I'll bet because they are looking at the same things that I am, and those numbers are going to make it really hard for any real person to actually run against, and beat, Obama.
Tomorrow, when the red, white and blue clown car heads off to South Carolina and New Hampshire all of those offices will close down. But tomorrow Obama will still have 8 full time offices up and running in Iowa. BO already has over $60,000,000 in his fund and he hasn't even really started to raise money yet. He'll have ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, before the convention. That's going to be real hard to raise late in the game, particular for a candidate who is not exactly setting the base on fire. It's going to be even harder if the 'Pubs seem to be running a loser (and that's most of them). 80% of the money for either party comes from the same sources - largely corporate money - who give to both sides so that no matter wins, they win. And that's not jaded, that's just good business.
It appears tht there is no clearcut winner in Iowa this evening.
Mr. Obama will need all of that $1 BILLION he plans to spend in 2012 if he hopes to win. He spent $750 million last time around.
Case in point:
In February 2009 his job approval rating was 62% favorable; 19% unfavorable
Today it is 47% favorable; 48% unfavorable (source: Real Clear Politics)
In a hypothetical matchup between Obama and a generic Republican:
Republican 47%; Obama 43% (source: Rasmussen Reports, 1/3/2012
The last president to have such a poor approval rating one year prior to an election was Jimmy Carter in 1979. He was blown out by Ronald Reagan in 1980. (Gallup 12/2/11)
MSNBC (11/11) reports that Obama's disapproval among independents is at 56%, disapproval among suburban residents at 57%, disapproval among midwest voters at 52%. These were key constituencies for his 2008 election. Obama's own campaign advisors term these poll results as "of concern."
OK, one more time with feeling.
People, like voters, don't elect the President, states do. So the numbers don't matter until you break them down into electoral votes. And the biggest states are pretty blue. And, for the most part there is no real campaign in them. People in NYC and SF really don't see any Presidential ads, there no sense in wasting the money. So all that huge amount of money - and a billion is just a start, wait till they really start adding up the superpac money - is going to be poured into only a couple of states that really swing it.
But - and bookmark this so I won't have to say "I told you so" you'll just be able to come back and read it every day....
...the insane religious wingnuts conservative "values voters" now have their candidate (not really, they wanted Sara, but she's too busy being a grifter - and too smart - to actually run)*. And it's a guy who not only lost re-election a sitting senator, but lost by a record amount. But the people who control the party (who are now free to do what they want because of the Citizens United ruling) are going to insure that Romney - Mister 1% himself - wins. And the easy way to do that is to run negative ads that destroy (and it's not going to be hard, he's not ready for prime time) Santorum. That (plus Mitt's RINO stuff, and the Mormon deal) is going to turn off the very voters that the 'Pubs need to turn out in order to win. As is being shown in some very red states, getting out the vote is only half the battle, suppressing the opposition is the other half, and BO is not even going to need to try to do that, it's going to be a done deal before the convention.
That's the story, it's not that Obama has to win, they just have to make sure that Mitt loses, and the way that Mitt is going to have to go - or will be 'gone' for him by his corporate pals - to eliminate the competition is going to insure it. Look at the negative ads run in Iowa that sank Newt in one week and double it, then triple that (particularly in South Carolina, if Mitt wins there, then its all over), and that kind of campaign has been shown time in and time out to turn people off.
Long campaigns also turn people off. And the 'Pubs have been running since the day after they blew (like Linda Lovelace in a penis convention) the last election and woke up to find a black man in the White House. And as much as 'generic Republican' beats Obama, the 'Pubs actually have to run a real person, and lots and lots of people are already bored/tired/burned out by all the ones who have been running.
Incumbants have a huge advantage regardless of the party. People often credit that to the power of holding the office, and that is a huge advantage. But the bigger advantage - the one Obama has and the 'Pubs can't - is that he doesn't have to run a primary. Primaries divide parties, they don't unite them. And while you picked up the money sentence, you missed the more important fact that I listed before it. So I'll repete it, because it's critical.
Tomorrow, when the red, white and blue clown car heads off to South Carolina and New Hampshire all of those offices will close down. But tomorrow Obama will still have 8 full time offices up and running in Iowa.
And not just Iowa, but in all 50 states. While the opposition tears itself apart, Obama is busy building organizations, boots on the ground, real people (not virtual) doing real campaign work. And it's in place a year out from the election, while the 'Pubs won't really be able to do that until May at the earliest - but most likely not until the summer. That's what early money buys, organization. And organization wins elections that are close.
But, here is where it is now.
Bachman, Huntsman, and Perry (also Trump, Governor Timmy, and Huckabee who liked his Fox money more than his country apparently) are gone. Newt is dead in the water, but going out gracefully is not his style, so look for him to put the knife in Mitt's back (that Mitts superpacs put in Newt's back, so it's more like just returning it to him) on his way out. Trump will make 3rd Party noises, but would never actually do it.
Mitt 'won', but still has no excitement behind him, no sense of momentum. In four years he really didn't win any more 'Pub voters than he had last time. That's flat like soda left out in sun and rain. Yeah, he 'won' but 75% of the 'Pub voters didn't vote for him. That's that bad indication for him.
The religious right has their guy, and he's not not a winner. His negatives are huge, his electability marginal, his appeal outside that base is lower than zero. He's almost a crazy-train level hawk in a war weary country, all that attack Iran stuff is going to lose him votes. The anti-abortion, anti-gay stuff does not get him any more votes than he already has, and lose him votes in a general election in a ->-bleeped-<-ty economy. Destroying him is going to be so easy it's going to be hard not to look mean doing it. Even if he picks up ALL the rest of the values crowd that's only another 13-15% of the 'Pubs, so he's still not over 50% in his own party. It's a democratic wet dream to run against Rick Santorum.
Ron Paul did well, but he did as good as he's ever going to do. What's more I doubt that more than 25% of his supporters (5% of the Iowa vote) would support ANY other candidate. They LOVE Ron Paul, but don't really care for anyone else - it's like a political cult more than a political campaign. And, he spend a year building that kind of support in Iowa, but he's not going to be able to do that in any other state, all of which have more votes than Iowa does. But he's in it for the long haul, I don't think he dropped out last time until June, so he's going to be a pain, one that both Rick and Mitt are going to have to contend with, but one that has no value to either of them, or indeed the party. But the worst nightmare (a 3rd party run) is not going to happen because of his son.
* - I seriously doubt such a person could win a national election anyway. No matter who was running against them. We're a corporate-industrial state, not a theocratic backwater. The more they pour on the religion, the deeper they sink with the swing voters who have no real attachment to those issues like abortion, prayer in school, gay marriage but who do care deeply about economic issues, and their own economic situation these days (bad and looking worse in the future) in particular.
... and if you though I was cynical/realistic before, wait till you read this...I also have no doubt that sometime long about last summer Sara Palin got a plain anonymous package, envelope, tape (something along those lines) that detailed the information that had been collected on her and would be released if she ran. So she was offered a choice, run and have that stuff come out, or fade away with her millions. And here's the real cynical part, I'll bet it was the Republican establishment that sent it to her. She was the only real threat to the establishment because she has what Mitt, Newt, Michele, Ron, Rick et all can't match one on one - hell they can't match it as a group - and that's charisma. They could not afford to take the risk that she might win. That's how the big boys really play the game.
Sounds nearly as complicated as preselection for the Australian Labor Party. Then the "faceless men" pick the candidate.
Quote from: Vanora on January 03, 2012, 07:28:09 PM
And none of the other candidates other than Romney have demonstrated a working combination of charisma, intelligence, and a somewhat workable ideology to be able to reasonably expect to win a general election.
None of the other candidates has the money the Mitt campaign does. And the "Restore Our Future" super-pac that backs Romney is outspending the Romney presidential campaign 2-1. So for every dollar his presidential campaign spends on getting him elected, his super-pac spends twice that. His showing in the polls wouldn't have been so steady without the big bucks backing him.
And thanks to the ever-so-wise Republicans on our Supreme Court, we have no idea from where all that money is coming nor do they have to tell us.
Last night I heard a comment to the effect "the Tea Party doesn't like leaders so whoever is in the lead, they won't support." If true, that may be one of the reasons for the schizophrenic graph.
In the end you're going to have an establishment selected elite candidate vs. an establishment selected elite candidate. When has it ever been any other way?
I'm not sure what this elaborate dance is all about, except to maintain the illusion of citizen participation and give our utterly worthless media something with which to sell soap and pills, but - as with the last election - no major policies will change, that's for sure.
Quote from: tekla on January 04, 2012, 12:36:02 PM
In the end you're going to have an establishment selected elite candidate vs. an establishment selected elite candidate. When has it ever been any other way?
I'm not sure what this elaborate dance is all about, except to maintain the illusion of citizen participation and give our utterly worthless media something with which to sell soap and pills, but - as with the last election - no major policies will change, that's for sure.
Things have changed in the past. In the last 50 years LBJ changed things quite a big and so did Reagan. I would say though that in the last 20 years little has changed. The government appears to be more and more run by special interests many of which are corporate but there are many others too. The government was bought and paid for by special interests even before the Citizens United decision. Very few pieces of legislation are not tainted with complete garbage. So it appears that the government is getting less responsive to solving real problems. And you could reach this conclusion whether you are liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between.
Hard to find two more establishment types than LBJ and Reagan. There are several different establishment elites in the US.
Quote from: tekla on January 04, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
Hard to find two more establishment types than JBJ and Reagan. There are several different establishment elites in the US.
Yes. But they both shook things up in different ways. And I suspect history will judge both of them with some positives and negatives but also judge them as being more consequential than all the other recent presidents. The real question is whether or not our system has any capacity to create positive change now.
I don't think it's a matter of capacity as it is one of need and will. Both of those eras had a broad-based demand for change, as well as a general consensus as to what changes were needed. We don't have that now, but I do think it's starting.
Quote from: tekla on January 04, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
Hard to find two more establishment types than JBJ and Reagan. There are several different establishment elites in the US.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shockya.com%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fjon-bon-jovi.jpg&hash=12986967d6a6497d9e8406a7638506058788680d)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanderhicks.com%2Fimages%2Fimagesjan04%2Freagan.jpg&hash=fb43c777778a8cf89f7779bd93d70680ea141ad9)
Yay. :laugh:
Good catch, I ought to hire you as my proofreader. Though JBJ is pretty establishment elite too.
I read a quote by LBJ that said Kennedy could never have done what was required to end Segregation in the South because he was an outsider, but being a Texan he could. Makes sense.
At least Bachmann and Palin are out of the race from what I understand.
Palin was never in the race, she just collected money like she was.
Bachmann thought she was in the running.
Bachmann didn't drop out of the race, she just suspended her campaign, like Cain did. That means they can still collect donations.
That means they can still collect donations.
A). They still have campaign debt to try to pay off
B). Of course, she's a Republithug, why stop taking money just because you're no longer going to do the job? Yeesh, they are 'party of personal responsibility' and how could they be personally taken care of if they stop taking money?
When I spend more than I have I go into debt. No one is there to donate to help me pay that off. I say if you run for office and rack up a bunch of debt, it's your fault and you gotta get yourself out of it. And if people are donating to help you out, you have to pay taxes on it. But of course Bachmann will just get another grant from the government.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Personal responsibility only applies to certain people.
What the graph says to me is that the values held by Republican candidates do not match the values held by Republican voters, so the voters keep moving their potential caucus/primary votes around, hoping to find someone tolerable. Unfortunately, most of them refuse to vote outside the Republican Party (in November) either because "a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other guy" or because a third party candidate "doesn't stand a chance", so they will end up with a candidate that does not truly represent them. Ironically, if those dissatisfied voters (both Repubs and Dems) were willing to look outside their party, we just might see the emergence of a new political party that is more representative of the nation as a whole than what we have now. If Obama is re-elected, these "dyed-in-the-wool" Republicans will be partly responsible. As I have always said, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."
As for the Democrat side, I pretty much figure the nominee will be Obama as I have not heard of any real contenders within the Democrat Party rising to challenge him. I've heard mutterings of encouraging Hillary to run for the nomination, but at this time it doesn't look like that will happen; there is too much momentum behind the incumbent because he is...well...the incumbent.
If people would vote based on performance records and qualifications instead of personality, sound bites, and affiliation, this country would probably be in a much better place.
I just hope we don't end up with Santorum as the next President; he scares me even more than Obama did.
Just my opinion.
Edit: To reduce apparent conflation of Presidential election with caucus/primary voting process.
Quote from: tekla on January 06, 2012, 07:34:33 PM
That means they can still collect donations.
A). They still have campaign debt to try to pay off
B). Of course, she's a Republithug, why stop taking money just because you're no longer going to do the job? Yeesh, they are 'party of personal responsibility' and how could they be personally taken care of if they stop taking money?
Perhaps she sees herself as a viable vice presidential candidate ... like Santorum.
She spent a year on the ground in Iowa, a place were she was born (and where that actually counts for something) and got a whole 5% of the vote, and nationwide she costs more votes than she attracts, so either way, that's a pretty unique definition of viable.
Quote from: Dana_H on January 07, 2012, 02:03:31 AM
I just hope we don't end up with Santorum as the next President; he scares me even more than Obama did.
I've heard a few liberals chomping at the bit, hoping to get that match up - Santorum vs Obama. It would be easy pickings. The one guy they have who will give Obama a run for their money is Mitt. And the Pubs hate him.
Maybe what that graph shows is the nation is closer to moderate that what many believe. The Pubs have moved so far right they are falling off the face of the earth. And the the majority of the voters aren't going with them. The Pubs are following the money because they are personally benefiting from it. The voters don't get that benefit. And the politicians don't get that.
Yeah in any rational (and in this case it means 'non-racist' because racism is irrational) world Obama would be seen for what he is (and the Democratic Left sees him this way) - as a center-right moderate who is prone to compromise. Because they are not busy calling him names the DL actually gets to criticize him on policy decisions and the Patriot Act stuff, the continuation of the War on Drugs, the internet stuff are all seen by the DL as not nearly liberal, leftist enough. Not by a long shot.
It just shows how far off the right-wing tracks many of the Republicans have got.
Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 09:29:26 AM
She spent a year on the ground in Iowa, a place were she was born (and where that actually counts for something) and got a whole 5% of the vote, and nationwide she costs more votes than she attracts, so either way, that's a pretty unique definition of viable.
Totally unsupported by any data. As the only female in the campaign for president, my guess would be just the opposite. However, I agree she was never anything more that a dark horse candidate.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 07, 2012, 10:33:03 AM
I've heard a few liberals chomping at the bit, hoping to get that match up - Santorum vs Obama. It would be easy pickings. The one guy they have who will give Obama a run for their money is Mitt. And the Pubs hate him.
Maybe what that graph shows is the nation is closer to moderate that what many believe. The Pubs have moved so far right they are falling off the face of the earth. And the the majority of the voters aren't going with them. The Pubs are following the money because they are personally benefiting from it. The voters don't get that benefit. And the politicians don't get that.
Gallup, June 2011, 10,265 respondents
"How would you describe your political views—very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?"Very Conservative - 11%
Conservative - 30%
Moderate - 36%
Liberal - 15%
Very Liberal - 6%
No Answer - 2%
From the "Very liberal" perspective, everybody appear far right.
The election will turn on who captures the middle.
Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 10:40:01 AM
Yeah in any rational (and in this case it means 'non-racist' because racism is irrational) world Obama would be seen for what he is (and the Democratic Left sees him this way) - as a center-right moderate who is prone to compromise. Because they are not busy calling him names the DL actually gets to criticize him on policy decisions and the Patriot Act stuff, the continuation of the War on Drugs, the internet stuff are all seen by the DL as not nearly liberal, leftist enough. Not by a long shot.
It just shows how far off the right-wing tracks many of the Republicans have got.
Saul Alinsky must be chuckling in his grave!
The fact that her views couldn't find traction in her 'home' state, after a year of solid campaigning, after going to every single Iowa county - in what is pretty close to her target demographics 'an ideal state' (that gay stuff ain't washing in any area in economic trouble, or any major urban state - that's them with the big electoral votes) she couldn't get above 5% tells me that she's not an asset to any ticket.
It's not just being 'female' it's being female with mainstream views and policies. And, at best, anyone with heavy Tea-Party/Evangelical support is a wash, but more likely a high negative among those they need to sway to win in the swing states. Face it, the very people she counted on to vote her in would not vote for her because their bible tells them that you need a penis to lead, not a vagina. She's a textbook case in delusion.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 07, 2012, 06:22:36 PM
Gallup, June 2011, 10,265 respondents
"How would you describe your political views—very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?"
Very Conservative - 11%
Conservative - 30%
Moderate - 36%
Liberal - 15%
Very Liberal - 6%
No Answer - 2%
And when you start asking them to more thoroughly define their political views, I'll bet those numbers would look like that graph.
Yeah, most people want to 'see' themselves as moderate - even if they are not. Kind of like the people I know who make in excess of $150K a year, and call themselves 'middle class'
Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 11:04:36 PM
Yeah, most people want to 'see' themselves as moderate - even if they are not. Kind of like the people I know who make in excess of $150K a year, and call themselves 'middle class'
I've noticed this, and it's why I try very hard to think of myself as very liberal and lower class, and to not obfuscate that no matter how normal and moderate I feel.
I'm a little mixed though, a gun-toting pacifist, more educated than most people in neighborhoods I usually live in, but too scuzzy to cut it in nicer settings.
Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 06:32:09 PM
The fact that her views couldn't find traction in her 'home' state, after a year of solid campaigning, after going to every single Iowa county - in what is pretty close to her target demographics 'an ideal state' (that gay stuff ain't washing in any area in economic trouble, or any major urban state - that's them with the big electoral votes) she couldn't get above 5% tells me that she's not an asset to any ticket.
It's not just being 'female' it's being female with mainstream views and policies. And, at best, anyone with heavy Tea-Party/Evangelical support is a wash, but more likely a high negative among those they need to sway to win in the swing states. Face it, the very people she counted on to vote her in would not vote for her because their bible tells them that you need a penis to lead, not a vagina. She's a textbook case in delusion.
Bachmann's result can easily be explained by "evangelical" voters having somewhere else to go. For instance, a recent Pew poll reported that Romney had a favorable rating among 46% of white evangelicals and 45% of Catholics.
Given that "Tea Party" voters constituted about 40% of the electorate in the 2010 general election, if the percentage remains anywhere near that, Mr. Obama will lose in a landslide.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 07, 2012, 10:49:06 PM
And when you start asking them to more thoroughly define their political views, I'll bet those numbers would look like that graph.
Your graph reported only Republican respondents.
If you take the similar Gallup sample, and look at political affiliation, the breakout reports 45% Democrat, 39% Republican, and 16% independent/other.
Democrats tend to be more likely than average women, minorities, liberal, unmarried, and irreligious. Since the 2008 election, those identifying as Democrats have dropped 7%,while those identifying as Republican or independent have gained 3% each. (Gallup, 11/7/2011)
Voting follows that in that the more moderate candidate (and this is where Palin hurt McCain) tends to win over anyone viewed as 'extreme' be it right or left.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 08, 2012, 01:35:25 AM
Your graph reported only Republican respondents.
The comparison to the graph was only to the scattered imagery the graph portrayed. Start asking those who categorize their political views by only one ideology questions like, "How do you identify yourself fiscally?" or "How do you identify yourself socially?" or "How do you identify yourself religiously?" and those numbers you posted earlier will begin to change rapidly.
Of course the problem with any poll is you can find another poll that will contradict that poll. Even if you have two different groups asking the same thing of the same people, the poll results could be very different by simply asking the questions differently.
On the other hand, you could ask questions like:
1. Should we be a warring nation?
2. Should we spend more than we collect in revenue?
3. Should every citizen of this country have the same rights?
4. Should we allow people to get sick and die because they have no money for health care?
The vast majority would probably answer: 1. No, 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. No. The last two would indicate there's a lot of socialists living in the good ol' USA. OMG!
But that's what happens when you scrape away all the fluff, spin, crust, and other garbage heaped on by those trying to baffle people with their BS in order to get the people to follow them. You get a clearer picture.
That GOP graph shows just how easily people are led. Knowing practically nothing about a given candidate, they hop on their bandwagon at the first glimmer of... well, practically anything. Simplify taxes? "Great! I'm in!" And they have no idea that in the end most people will pay more in taxes. Politicians know this about the voters and they take advantage of it. They see the average voter as a lemming.
Looking back at this whole GOP primary, it appears the GOP has been testing the voter's tolerance for a far right candidate. That candidate is appealing to the big contributors because of the tax advantages far right candidates will give them. Think of it, we have a lobbyist who is considered by some to be the most powerful man in Washington. HUH? And that is solely because big money is backing him on his tax pledge and he has threatened to destroy any politician who does not sign and honor his pledge. That's why the Pubs have so steadfastly refused to accept any tax hikes, even if it means leaving this country broke.
Romney is not far right enough for them. So they offer up anybody and everybody and hope one of them sticks. Their desperation to find that person has turned the primary into a joke, with such questions like, "Who will be the flavor of the week?"
I think they would have liked Palin if she had the backbone and classiness of Hillary. But she turned herself into a media
hound clown.
The biggest problem with the Pubs today is they are owned by wealthy capitalists. And the needs and wants of the wealthy capitalists is very different than the needs and wants of the average person. This is not to say the Dems aren't dipping into that same pot, but at least they are throwing a bone to the dog once in a while.
Well they have managed to turn the derp up to 11.
Rick Perry wants to re-invade Iraq (despite the fact that the withdraw (which, if you recall, originality should have been only a few months after they 'hailed us as liberators' back early in the last decade), so that we could fight Iran, wow, now that's a sure fire vote-getter.
{ed.comment: Oh, if only we had a strong secular leader in Iraq with a military that could counter Iran.}
Rick 'Frothy' Santorum wants to ban birth control (while rolling back Griswold and Roe)as a way of controlling sexual behavior, as one of his first actions, because that's just what small governments do. Hey, that's vote magnet ain't it. Women are going to be flocking to support him. He also wants to eliminate the 9th Circuit based on some of the most marginal stats ever - but math does have a noted liberal bias. Never mind that he would have no power to do that.
Mitt - well it's hard to say because everything he was for he's now against, and everything he was against he's now for, but for sure he knows how to create jobs (off-shore). I will say that he looked properly pained to be there with the common folk.
Newt - well that was kinda brilliant how he answered the draft question saying he was married and had kids, only to have Ron Paul say that he served when he was married and had kids. Ouch.
{ed.note: though Paul was being completely disingenuous, he was forced to go, its' not like he chose it.}
Of course, Ron Paul being Ron Paul after getting on Newt's case about things that were 40 years old, turned around and said that the newsletter issue was 20 years ago and not relevant.
{ed.note: Can't manage a newsletter? Can't manage a nation.}
And I got all that just by watching during the commercial breaks in the football game - I can't imagine what the rest of it sounded like, nor how much all this gets turned up in S Carolina next week.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 08, 2012, 09:13:02 AM
(snip)
Of course the problem with any poll is you can find another poll that will contradict that poll. Even if you have two different groups asking the same thing of the same people, the poll results could be very different by simply asking the questions differently.
On the other hand, you could ask questions like:
1. Should we be a warring nation?
2. Should we spend more than we collect in revenue?
3. Should every citizen of this country have the same rights?
4. Should we allow people to get sick and die because they have no money for health care?
The vast majority would probably answer: 1. No, 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. Yes. The last two would indicate there's a lot of socialists living in the good ol' USA. OMG!
(snip)
Gallup has been asking the same political ideology and political identification questions for more than 50 years. That is why they are so useful in looking at trends. The trend is working against th Democrats. As a party, they are becoming more extreme and less mainstream.
I would think most republicans and conservatives would answer "No" to question #4. Of course, the devil is in the details, because they would also answer that each individual has a responsibility to provide for themselves and their future. Cradle-to-grave socialism has proven to be a failed social model.
The role of government is to make sure there exiats a level playing field; not to ensure that the game end in a tie.
Yeah, Germany and France and other European nations sunk themselves with all that socialism stuff. It's great that they destroyed themselves to the point that they can't compete with us anymore.
Fact is health-care - far from being a matter of personal responsibility - is really an industrial issue. It adds a considerable cost to US products that other companies in other nations don't have. Odd that the US - one of the pioneers of Public Health back in the 1840s - would fall so far behind after taking the initial lead.
And here's the thing about polling data and why it's been so far off of late, and getting worse. Polls use land lines.* Which means they are polling an increasingly obscure and marginal section of the population. One that is older, so of course, more conservative. If you are polling by land line only the odds of getting anyone under the age of 35 is poor at best. It's also going to cost you a lot of urban people as land line usage tends to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and it's now higher for businesses than it is for individuals - who are all on mobile/cell phones. I know exactly one person (out of about say 50 I know well enough to say this about) who have a land line, everyone else went cell almost a decade ago now. Since I'm on a DNC list, and have a cell phone, I'll never get polled. And I think they are missing a huge segment of the population, which, again, is why the polling data anymore rarely supports the outcomes it's intended to predict.
*The also can't contact people on DNC lists, which also tend to a younger demographic.
Quote from: tekla on January 08, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
snip
And here's the thing about polling data and why it's been so far off of late, and getting worse. Polls use land lines.* Which means they are polling an increasingly obscure and marginal section of the population. One that is older, so of course, more conservative. If you are polling by land line only the odds of getting anyone under the age of 35 is poor at best. It's also going to cost you a lot of urban people as land line usage tends to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and it's now higher for businesses than it is for individuals - who are all on mobile/cell phones. I know exactly one person (out of about say 50 I know well enough to say this about) who have a land line, everyone else went cell almost a decade ago now. Since I'm on a DNC list, and have a cell phone, I'll never get polled. And I think they are missing a huge segment of the population, which, again, is why the polling data anymore rarely supports the outcomes it's intended to predict.
*The also can't contact people on DNC lists, which also tend to a younger demographic.
Pew Research has been looking at the landline/cell phone issue for some time. So have the other major polling groups.
HERE (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1761/cell-phones-and-election-polls-2010-midterm-elections) is an article from the time of the 2010 elections by Pew which addresses those issues.
Gallup published an interesting table concerning its accuracy record with respect to presidential elections.
Table (http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/Election-Polls-Accuracy-Record-Presidential-Elections.aspx)
Gallup tends to slightly overestimate the support of the more liberal candidate.
QuoteWell they have managed to turn the derp up to 11.
;D
This is my favorite election cycle yet.
Possibly inappropriate humor: I was at my daughter's school for a performance a few months ago, and I texted a friend and said "you haven't lived until you've seen a [special education] talent show." His answer was "what about the GOP debates?"
Hahaha I'm a monster.
It's really hard to look at the field, particularly the standouts like the mobbed-up developer with a slight ego problem (really, not only does the US NOT want a President who would pick a public fight with Rosie O'Donald, but yeesh, damn it you at least have to win), or the Pizza Guy who was delivering more than pizzas cause his sauce was so boss, the disgraced ex-Congressional leader on his third marriage running on the Family Values platform, the guy who not only couldn't get re-elected, but lost by a record amount (who wants to start a war with Iran), an anti-gay Congressperson considered by many to be flat-out crazy (who wants to use nuclear missiles on Iran), the guy who followed Bush as governor of Texas and made Bush look smart (and want's to re-invade Iraq), and and some guy who thinks that the US shouldn't have any foreign policy at all but heroin should be legal and has a cult-like following who's not likely to support anyone but him.... well its hard to look at that bunch and think that anyone who is supporting that mess is serious about helping out America.
Remember when the Republicans were the party people trusted to run foreign policy? Yeah, about that...
Nope, because against some of the worst economic stuff we've ever faced, they really want a Ka-Billionare (they relate so well with average Americans don't 'cha know), Mister 1% himself who's every fiber of his being screams: "I'm an entitled, inconsiderate ->-bleeped-<-" >>> who you would think being that kind of person would have a regular LoveFest going on in the Republican Party, but it turns out he's a member of a weird religious cult, and having actually governed a major state has had to sign off on decisions that were not 1000% Tea Party Pure (meaning: they worked) so he gets denounced as being a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
And the one guy who actually has some real credentials, a governor with real foreign policy experience who actually sounds sane when he speaks, he's the one in trouble (though to be sure I think he's really running for 2016) - though in fairness... supporting scientific evidence for global climate change and being able to speak another language and actually doing so - never mind it's freakin' Mandarin - makes me wonder if he actually knows what party he is running in.
And it's at a point where it's far more than just Who Is Going To Best Solve Our Problems? I can't find anyone who is even willing to discuss the very nature of the problems without either sticking their heads in the sand or skidding off the tracks on some Saul Alansky/Socialism/UFOs/Illuminati Knights Templar tangent.
Here's an example. Almost everyone agrees that we've lost the war on drugs. (Yeah, and by any standard you'd care to use) We have totally failed not only at attempts to stop the flood of illegal narcotics into this country, we can't even seem to curtail the amount of illegal drugs produced in this county. I can go to work and get anything I want between what's out on the streets and what rock workers and patrons have (particularly the bar-staff if you know what I mean). And you can say, "Well Kat, that's because you work in a human sewer overflowing with alcohol and filled with a bunch of dopers" - and OK, that's true. But Felix above me here, Felix who is NOT working around 'those rock star' people in some big city club, Felix who does NOT have a couple of hundreds in his pocket for walking around money that's just waiting to be spend on personal indulgence...Felix can find drugs just as easily as I can. So can the people in NYC, or Chicago, or Topeka (it might be easier to find meth in Topeka than it would be for me), or any town large or small, or rural or Downtown LA.
And that's not just me saying we've failed. Law enforcement officers admit we've failed. Drug addicts admit we've failed - and are proof of it. Teachers, kids, priests, even local and state politicians all admit that our current anti-drug policies are abject failures, and half of them have some drugs around -or are on drugs right now - to prove it. Forty years - 4 decades, two generations now - we've had a huge War on Drugs and as far as I can see the amount of drugs has increased, the number of drugs has increased (X and the club/designer drugs and crack were not even around at the beginning of The War), and the potency of the drugs has gone off the charts. That's some mighty fine police work there Lou.
But, no matter the level of failure that everyone sees and admits to we don't change our drug policies. In fact, anyone who stands up and says 'we need to discuss this issue' is slammed for being 'weak on crime' and either laughed at or hunted down and either way their career destroyed.
There are lots of little reasons as to why we are so hung up on not changing it - money in the criminal justice system being a huge one - but I think the one big overriding one is that our culture can't admit defeat and it's killing us. We'd rather thousands of people a day keep getting hooked on drugs than stop the madness and rethink our entire strategy. And its the same thing with the war on terror or our budget crisis. We can't admit that we've got a problem and that how we're doing things might be wrong. It's more important for 'our team' (whichever team it is you happen to root for come election season) to win.
And so long as the real nature of the problem is unstated, so long as the real causes are not looked at, so long as attention is paid to everything BUT the rational choices, so long as no body is even going to describe it in realistic terms - then so long is nothing going to happen, and everything is going to just get worse.
And, with everything getting worse I'm expected to somehow take seriously this bunch of people as the potential leaders - AS THE OPPOSITION TO THE REALLY CRAPPY WAY THINGS ARE BEING RUN - as the folks that will that will help guide us out? With a national economy on the skids, the international economy looking even worse, a declining educational base, a manufacturing base that's all but destroyed, huge health care issues including: the rise of infectious disease, the drug problem, bankrupting costs, entrenched interests manipulating the system for their own profit, and a vast difference in care levels regardless of the problem (how do you think that infectious stuff gets going and keeps going?), I'm supposed to listen to derp about gays and birth control and abstinence - do they have some sort of penis/sex infatuation or what? - as somehow being the least bit relevant to anything meaningful?
Am I really supposed to take seriously anyone who even for a nano-second thought about giving Rick Santorum or Michele Bachman the nuclear launch codes? Am I supposed to put the economy in the hands of someone who bankrupted two casinos? I'm supposed to put someone who delivered pizzas in charge of foreign policy? I'm supposed to put the police power of the government in the hands of Newt? And I'm going to put the well being of the entire citizenry as well as the wealth and treasure of the United States into the safe keeping of Mitt? You're kidding me right?
I think they should rename the Republicans the Thelma and Louise Party because they sure are pedal to the metal heading toward the edge and they ain't even thinking about tapping the break. I think we're heading towards a very large cliff and the best any of us can do is to hopefully get the hell away from the rest of the herd before they plunge off into the abyss and take us with 'em.
PS. I want god to strike dead the next one of these scumbags who says 'the government can't create jobs' as they try to get a government job.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 08, 2012, 04:51:20 PM
I would think most republicans and conservatives would answer "No" to question #4.
Thanks for catching that. It should have said, "No". I'll make the correction.
Only a heartless bastard who didn't care what anyone thought of him or her would publicly say those who can't afford healthcare can get sick and die. If the heartless bastard does care about what others think of him or her, that statement will be reworded so as not to sound so heartless and cold. At that, politicians excel.
Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 07:10:39 AM
Am I really supposed to take seriously anyone who even for a nano-second thought about giving Rick Santorum or Michele Bachman the nuclear launch codes? Am I supposed to put the economy in the hands of someone who bankrupted two casinos? I'm supposed to put someone who delivered pizzas in charge of foreign policy? I'm supposed to put the police power of the government in the hands of Newt? And I'm going to put the well being of the entire citizenry as well as the wealth and treasure of the United States into the safe keeping of Mitt? You're kidding me right?
This should be asked of anyone and everyone who is voting Republican, over and over and over, until they get it.
(that launch code thing sent chills down my spine...)
I'd also like to add,
Am I supposed to put education in the hands of a man who's solution to the failure of schools in poor neighborhoods is to fire the union janitors and pay the students to be janitors so they learn a skill?
Am I supposed to place the responsibility of civil rights in the hands of a man who tells children of gay parents they would be better off if their parents were straight and in prison?
Am I supposed to put freedom of religion in the hands of anyone who runs on a religious platform?
Am I supposed to put the hope of living in peace in the hands of anyone who is planning a war before even getting into office?
Maybe the real drug problem is within the Republican candidates. They have to be on something.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 09, 2012, 10:39:15 AM
This should be asked of anyone and everyone who is voting Republican, over and over and over, until they get it.
(that launch code thing sent chills down my spine...)
You seem content with an Administration that put Joe Biden on the ticket to beef up its foreign policy credentials ::)
I'd also like to add,
Am I supposed to put education in the hands of a man who's solution to the failure of schools in poor neighborhoods is to fire the union janitors and pay the students to be janitors so they learn a skill?
Am I supposed to place the responsibility of civil rights in the hands of a man who tells children of gay parents they would be better off if their parents were straight and in prison?
Am I supposed to put freedom of religion in the hands of anyone who runs on a religious platform?
Am I supposed to put the hope of living in peace in the hands of anyone who is planning a war before even getting into office?
How is "living in peace" helped by a person who orders assassinations while violating another country's sovereignty?
Maybe the real drug problem is within the Republican candidates. They have to be on something.
I have yet to read the praise for the current occupant of the White House. Odd. :embarrassed:
Quote from: Jamie D on January 09, 2012, 01:18:08 PM
I have yet to read the praise for the current occupant of the White House. Odd. :embarrassed:
I praised him. I said he throws the dog a bone once in a while.
Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 07:10:39 AM
It's really hard to look at the field ...
PS. I want god to strike dead the next one of these scumbags who says 'the government can't create jobs' as they try to get a government job.
I must admit, that was an impressive rant.
Just to clarify one thing. There can be little doubt that Mr. Obama is a Saul Alinsky acolyte. For those who don't know who Saul Alinsky was, I refer you to his book,
Rules for Radicals.
In speaking about the Obama campaign and Democratic Convention in 2008, the son of the late communist community organizer said,
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness .... It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."High praise indeed!
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 09, 2012, 01:36:11 PM
I praised him. I said he throws the dog a bone once in a while.
Lucky dog.
You seem content with an Administration that put Joe Biden on the ticket to beef up its foreign policy credentials
Happy though everyone was to see the Office of the Vice President return to it's natural 'under a rock somewhere, and who cares anyway?' Constitutional status after The Dick Cheney Years (now running at an undisclosed location, that turned out to be his house) Obama's foreign policy has been nothing short of brilliant. He returned the policy decision to the Secretary of State (from the National Security Adviser and the aforementioned Dick Cheney) put someone beyond totally competent in charge and left them alone. And you've hardly heard a peep of problems from any of those pesky foreign countries who always seem to be peeping all the time. Hillary Clinton is going to go down as one of the best SofState ever. And we were damn lucky to have her.
How is "living in peace" helped by a person who orders assassinations while violating another country's sovereignty?
Can't bring yourself to say it can you? Barrack Obama killed Osama bin Laden. There. It's done. And we could quibble morality, but the moment he took responsibility for 9-11 he was dead*, the only issue was going to be how long? And no sovereign nation would ever say that they didn't have the right to hunt down and kill someone who attacked them like that. And after reading the WikiLeaks on the conduct of Pakistan I'm really OK with it.
I guess we could have sent him something that made it look like he won a prize, a vacation in Disney World or something and nabbed him when he tried to get on the Mad Tea Cup Ride. Think that would have worked?
* - and he was dead because BO did what anyone in that office would have done, what I would have done had I been sitting there and they walked in and said "We know where he is" - and that's ask "Then why is he still alive?" No doubt that there were many people in the intelligence community as well as the military - the kind of people who when they make up their mind to do something, they get it done - they pretty much swore a blood oath to revenge 9-11. And no matter how long, or how far, they were going to find him and kill him. Done deal.
Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 03:22:01 PM
snip
Obama's foreign policy has been nothing short of brilliant. He returned the policy decision to the Secretary of State (from the NationalSecurity Adviser and the aforementioned Dick Cheney) put someone beyond totally competent in charge and left them alone. And you've hardly heard a peep of problems from any of those pesky foreign countries who always seem to be peeping all the time. Hillary Clinton is going to go down as one of the best SofState ever. And we were damn lucky to have her.
snip
Mr. Obama's foreign policy began with the "bow, kowtow, and apology tour." And it hasn't improved since.
He is inconsistent (i.e. Egypt ... Libya ... Syria??), has destabilized Iraq, emboldened Iran, punted in Afghanistan, and enabled Islamo-fascism around the world. No one can argue the world is a safer place today than it was in 2008.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 09, 2012, 01:39:17 PM
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness .... It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen."
I think Alinsky' son was a bit generous in praising Chicago politics and his father. George Dunne and Rod Blagojevich, both students of that "amazingly powerful format", ended up in jail.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 09, 2012, 06:44:55 PM
I think Alinsky' son was a bit generous in praising Chicago politics and his father. George Dunne and Rod Blagojevich, both students of that "amazingly powerful format", ended up in jail.
"Generous"? I'd say spot on!
The Alinsky clique runs deep in Obama's Chicago circle. Need I mention Mr. Obama's long-time, close association with Alinsky followers and domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? ACORN anyone?
You know anybody can (and has) used the Alansky community organizing stuff. He might have had an ideology (it's political stuff, community organizing, so of course it has an ideology), but you don't have to share his ideology in order to employ his strategy and tactics. And I don't think that BO was some huge follower, FTR I think Hillary was more a student of Alansky. And lots of the Tea Party stuff is right out of Alansky's work.
Though I do think it's cute that they've got all these people thinking that Harvard Law now is graduating a bunch of radical socialists instead of the rank and file, status quo of the 1%.
Quote from: tekla on January 10, 2012, 12:59:51 AM
You know anybody can (and has) used the Alansky community organizing stuff. He might have had an ideology (it's political stuff, community organizing, so of course it has an ideology), but you don't have to share his ideology in order to employ his strategy and tactics. And I don't think that BO was some huge follower, FTR I think Hillary was more a student of Alansky. And lots of the Tea Party stuff is right out of Alansky's work.
Though I do think it's cute that they've got all these people thinking that Harvard Law now is graduating a bunch of radical socialists instead of the rank and file, status quo of the 1%.
Not only was Mr. Obama a follower of the Alinsky Method, he taught it and wrote about it.
Case in point:
After Alinsky: Community Organizing in IllinoisChapter 4: Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City
by Barack Obama (1988)
There are certain buzz words in politics that cause irrational behavior in certain humans. "Communism" and "socialism" are two of them. If you can tag someone with either or both of those stigmas, you can seriously handicap them. It's a lot like how certain christian identified people use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay". For the ignorant, it stirs up a lot of irrational fear.
There is a rather humorous litany of labels that Obama haters have tried to attach to him. For the educated, that hasn't worked. I'm not saying he's a saint. Simply being a politician precludes him from that category. But when you compare him to the parade of GOP hopefuls that the Pubs are displaying as the Great White (or Black) Hope, Obama is simply the better alternative.
But regardless of who you like, if your trans, LGB, or just an advocate, supporting (most) Republicans is like a Jew in Nazi Germany supporting the Third Reich. By and large, the entire Republican party has stood steadfast in NOT supporting ENDA. They see LGBT people as third class citizens and, if given the ability to do so, would probably lock us all up in reparative therapy camps and keep us there until we're "cured". And I don't see even a glimmer of hope this attitude will change anytime in the near future.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 10, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
But regardless of who you like, if your trans, LGB, or just an advocate, supporting (most) Republicans is like a Jew in Nazi Germany supporting the Third Reich. By and large, the entire Republican party has stood steadfast in NOT supporting ENDA. They see LGBT people as third class citizens and, if given the ability to do so, would probably lock us all up in reparative therapy camps and keep us there until we're "cured". And I don't see even a glimmer of hope this attitude will change anytime in the near future.
I would say your analogy is a little off. The Third Reich went about killing 6 million Jews and millions of other people. Only someone in the victim group who had complete self loathing for their own race would have supported the Nazis.
By contrast, American politics operates generally within certain somewhat predictable bounds. For many GLBT people, the slow pace of progress offered by Republicans would be unacceptable and would be their primary issue. For others, other political issues may trump trans issues even if the voter is trans just as a rich person might vote for a a tax increasing liberal because of an issue like abortion rights. Some people are economic libertarians and view social issues as irrelevant either way or view that government has simply gotten to big or powerful. Others share Republican philosophy in other ways. So those people who support the GOP might have rational reasons to do so even though you personally don't appear to agree with anything the GOP does.
Also, while overall GOP policy is pretty clear, you can see trends moving towards more individual freedom for GLBT people when you look at polling data that increasingly supports rights for all GLBT people. And when you dig into the data, it appears that majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans agree that there should be equal rights for these people. That being said, I would never criticize anybody who votes for whomever is on their side on these issues. I just think it is a bit excessive to overly criticize someone else who votes the other way and to then compare them to Nazi supporting Jews.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 10, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
There are certain buzz words in politics that cause irrational behavior in certain humans. "Communism" and "socialism" are two of them. If you can tag someone with either or both of those stigmas, you can seriously handicap them. It's a lot like how certain christian identified people use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay". For the ignorant, it stirs up a lot of irrational fear.
There is a rather humorous litany of labels that Obama haters have tried to attach to him. For the educated, that hasn't worked. I'm not saying he's a saint. Simply being a politician precludes him from that category. But when you compare him to the parade of GOP hopefuls that the Pubs are displaying as the Great White (or Black) Hope, Obama is simply the better alternative.
But regardless of who you like, if your trans, LGB, or just an advocate, supporting (most) Republicans is like a Jew in Nazi Germany supporting the Third Reich. By and large, the entire Republican party has stood steadfast in NOT supporting ENDA. They see LGBT people as third class citizens and, if given the ability to do so, would probably lock us all up in reparative therapy camps and keep us there until we're "cured". And I don't see even a glimmer of hope this attitude will change anytime in the near future.
I understand and am sensitive to your experience with workplace discrimination, but to compare Republicans to mass murders is over the top, hyperbolic, and just plain wrong.
Need I remind you that, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, in 2007-2008, and with a Democrat executive from 2009-2010, they failed to pass ENDA? Why was that?
Republicans, largely, treasure individual liberties and rights. I can not think of a single Republican in power who has advocated "camps" for gender variant people.
While I am opposed to discrimination and bigotry on all levels, there exist good reasons to oppose specific legislation. In general, I oppose creating special "classes" or "groups" of persons to afford special rights. You cannot create social harmony by dividing people into interest groups. Discrimination will be ended through understanding and education.
And not all GLBT organizations or spokespersons have supported ENDA. In 2009, for instance, Indiana Equality called ENDA a "new form of segregation."
Though the point may have been a bit harsh, it's no secret that the current crop and their base supporters are no big fans of expanded civil rights unless it's for corporations - though, and I'll admit that it's cracking me up - and even then I'm hearing some of them complain (like I said, I'm really laughing my ass off here) about money in politics and how hard it is to fight the rich guy. I mean hearing them talk about money in politics was like listening to Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, and Larry Flint decry using sex to sell magazines.
And what is it about the big Saul Alinski 5-Minute Hate that's been going on over him and Obama (though it started with Hillary)? Heck, I always thought of Saul as a big old All-American success story. Though to be sure not until recently did anyone outside his city/and or/field really knew of him. Let's face it, handbooks on community organizing don't exactly fly off the shelves like sexual serial killer stories with titles like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
Did he advocate violence? Push for a violent overthrow? Did he tell people to come armed? Did Saul ever advocate saying: "We came unarmed this time"? Did he in fact ever use any tactics that were not democratically approved? Was his overall strategy not pretty American - keeping government close to home and responsible for/responsive to those who elected it?
He did stand counter to the politics of people like Hizhonor Da Mayor there in Chicago, but then again, I'm really doubting that you're part of the Richard J. Daley fan-club either. But I will say something positive about Mayor Daley, and it's something that the right-wing has gone loco about - Daley understood that even though Saul and himself never saw eye to eye, envisioned two totally different outcomes, and served two vastly different consitinties, Daley himself said: "Alinsky loves Chicago the same as I do." And people forget that - or outright ignore it by trying to claim that he's not even an American - that Obama loves the same USA that Julie and I love, and it's the same country that those busy wrapping them selves in a flag to notice, claim to love also. So he comes down on a political point somewhat different than yours? That's the basis of democracy is that people have differing points of view about the same issues/facts.
But the way people want to link Obama to Alinsky is like he's Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao all rolled into one. And he's not. Nor is he The Club of Rome or the Illuminati meeting all in secret there - hell no, everything Alinsky did was out in the open, in small meetings with everyday people. And what happened when all those people got together? Did all these people get together and demand that the government take over the means of production, thus ushering in a workers paradise with cradle to grave governmental care of every whim?
Nope.
More often then not people organized for such basic things as stop lights, stop signs, turning that abandoned lot with all the trash into a park, police protection, upgrading of sanitation equipment to meet the standards of the rest of the city, better schools, and a more responsive government that at least listened to them on occasion.
That's what old Saul was really all about, helping people to solve little problems and in working together they could begin to solve bigger problems - which is also the foundation of theater, corporations, industry, armies, unions, government and team sports - I'm not seeing some big huge wrong about any of it.
Matter of fact, when Saul quotes Judge Hand, I kinda like him. Alinsky liked to quote Hand's saying that it was important to have 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."
And to the degree that Julie Marie, and myself, and not a few other people - see one side of the political debate dominated by exactly those doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated types, with no shortage of religious and political and racial fanatics extolling views/attitudes/notions and polices that are far out of the mainstream - well if it's not full out scary yet, it's certainly way past time to take it seriously.
I don't think anyone's got an inside track on truth going on right now. The problems we are facing are novel in that they are the result in no small degree of the doctrinal thinking of the past, and will need new solutions and not old applications. It's not that they were unseen - they have not crept up on us exactly - but the old notions couldn't envision a solution so they just ignored the growing problems, the mounting anomalies, and the ever-expanding list of systemic breakdowns until they just ran smack into the tree. Thelma and Louise baby.
Quote from: tekla on January 11, 2012, 10:22:41 AM
Though the point may have been a bit harsh, it's no secret that the current crop and their base supporters are no big fans of expanded civil rights unless it's for corporations - though, and I'll admit that it's cracking me up - and even then I'm hearing some of them complain (like I said, I'm really laughing my ass off here) about money in politics and how hard it is to fight the rich guy. I mean hearing them talk about money in politics was like listening to Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, and Larry Flint decry using sex to sell magazines.
"... a bit harsh ..."?? Comparing Republicans to Nazis is exactly what I termed it; "over the top."
And what is it about the big Saul Alinski 5-Minute Hate that's been going on over him and Obama (though it started with Hillary)? Heck, I always thought of Saul as a big old All-American success story. Though to be sure not until recently did anyone outside his city/and or/field really knew of him. Let's face it, handbooks on community organizing don't exactly fly off the shelves like sexual serial killer stories with titles like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
Did he advocate violence? Push for a violent overthrow? Did he tell people to come armed? Did Saul ever advocate saying: "We came unarmed this time"? Did he in fact ever use any tactics that were not democratically approved? Was his overall strategy not pretty American - keeping government close to home and responsible for/responsive to those who elected it?
You are correct that Alinsky did not openly advocate violence. The context of his book, Rules for Radicals, written in 1971, was in the immediate aftermath of the turbulent 1960's. But neither did Alinsky condemn violence. He was a committed Marxist and a revolutionary. He referred to his opposition as "the enemy." He advocated a more stealthly approach to radicalism and revolution. But at the same time he asked, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?" thus leaving the door open to the more common Cummunist approach to violent revolution. After all, he admired the Spanish Civil War phrase, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." That is not exactly the approach of a pacifist.
He did stand counter to the politics of people like Hizhonor Da Mayor there in Chicago, but then again, I'm really doubting that you're part of the Richard J. Daley fan-club either. But I will say something positive about Mayor Daley, and it's something that the right-wing has gone loco about - Daley understood that even though Saul and himself never saw eye to eye, envisioned two totally different outcomes, and served two vastly different consitinties, Daley himself said: "Alinsky loves Chicago the same as I do." And people forget that - or outright ignore it by trying to claim that he's not even an American - that Obama loves the same USA that Julie and I love, and it's the same country that those busy wrapping them selves in a flag to notice, claim to love also. So he comes down on a political point somewhat different than yours? That's the basis of democracy is that people have differing points of view about the same issues/facts.
Obama does not love traditional America. He is a committed leftwing ideologue who believes he operates under a superior moral imperative. Did you ever read Stanley Kurtz's, Radical-in-Chief: Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism? There is not one shred of doubt that Obama embraces the socialist ideal, while at the same time, runs away from the label.
With all due respect to the late Mayor Daley, Obama is much more closely associated with Harold Washington.
But the way people want to link Obama to Alinsky is like he's Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao all rolled into one. And he's not. Nor is he The Club of Rome or the Illuminati meeting all in secret there - hell no, everything Alinsky did was out in the open, in small meetings with everyday people. And what happened when all those people got together? Did all these people get together and demand that the government take over the means of production, thus ushering in a workers paradise with cradle to grave governmental care of every whim?
Nope.
A nice exposition of Alinsky's Rule #5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Charges that Obama is philosophically influenced by the Marxist Alinsky are not in the same realm of political mythology and propaganda that has sprung up around the "New World Order" or the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
More often then not people organized for such basic things as stop lights, stop signs, turning that abandoned lot with all the trash into a park, police protection, upgrading of sanitation equipment to meet the standards of the rest of the city, better schools, and a more responsive government that at least listened to them on occasion.
That's what old Saul was really all about, helping people to solve little problems and in working together they could begin to solve bigger problems - which is also the foundation of theater, corporations, industry, armies, unions, government and team sports - I'm not seeing some big huge wrong about any of it.
When Alinsky talks about mobilizing "mass power," he is not contemplating the issue of stops signs before the town council.
Matter of fact, when Saul quotes Judge Hand, I kinda like him. Alinsky liked to quote Hand's saying that it was important to have 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."
You are right about that. The biggest offenders, of course, being the irreligious authoritarians of the 20th century. The premise of America is that the people have a natural right to rise up against tyranny and oppression. But socialism, as practiced behind the "iron curtain," was/is a malignant form of government, and as practiced in many non-communist countries today, is a form of statism and a soft tyranny. Both are antithetical to the American tradition. To the extent that Obama admires and attempts to emulate modern socialism, he a traitor to our founding principals.
I am all for political pluralism and open debate. That is the American tradition. I don't claim to know the absolute truth, but I do know when I'm being presented a bill of goods.
And to the degree that Julie Marie, and myself, and not a few other people - see one side of the political debate dominated by exactly those doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated types, with no shortage of religious and political and racial fanatics extolling views/attitudes/notions and polices that are far out of the mainstream - well if it's not full out scary yet, it's certainly way past time to take it seriously.
Rule 5 again. Are ad hominems necessary? Are those who don't agree with you "racists," "intellectually constipated," "humorless," and "doctrinaire"? It is, I suppose, all a matter of perspective.
I don't think anyone's got an inside track on truth going on right now. The problems we are facing are novel in that they are the result in no small degree of the doctrinal thinking of the past, and will need new solutions and not old applications. It's not that they were unseen - they have not crept up on us exactly - but the old notions couldn't envision a solution so they just ignored the growing problems, the mounting anomalies, and the ever-expanding list of systemic breakdowns until they just ran smack into the tree. Thelma and Louise baby.
The good thing about the American political system is that it has historically been "self-correcting." There was a certain genius in the checks and balances designed by the Framers of the Constitution, both within the structure of the American federal government, and its relationship to the States. Great issues work their way through the political process, from the grass roots level to the institutions of government. The original design allowed for flexibility and the opportunity for change. Sometimes, in the case slavery, for instance, it led to violent confrontation. However, many, if not most issues (i.e. suffrage, civil rights, guaranteed freedoms and liberties) are solved through the peaceful, democratic process. I don't believe one can make the house a stronger dwelling by tearing away the foundation and destroying the framing. But that, it seems, is the change that Mr. Obama has promised and tried to enact.
There's a difference between using the word "like" and making the statement "it would be identical to". The analogy was not intended to say Republicans want to gas LGBT people and put them in concentration camps, only that voting for someone who does not support equality when it comes to LGBT people, when you are lesbian, gay, bi or trans, is encouraging more discrimination. But yes, I do believe certain conservatives would be more than happy to force us into reparative therapy until we're cured.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 11, 2012, 12:33:41 AM
While I am opposed to discrimination and bigotry on all levels, there exist good reasons to oppose specific legislation. In general, I oppose creating special "classes" or "groups" of persons to afford special rights. You cannot create social harmony by dividing people into interest groups. Discrimination will be ended through understanding and education.
Providing equal rights is not supporting special classes or groups. Saying that non-LGBT people can enjoy certain rights and privileges that LGBT people can't enjoy is. You can't be fired for being straight but there are states where you can be fired for being gay. And the rest of the states make you run through the ringer should you be fired for being gay. Law is one thing, enforcement of those laws is quite another.
The "special rights" thing has been spun about for as long as those who are being discriminated against have demanded equal rights. And it's total BS! Those who truly enjoy special rights, the people who aren't being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their nationality or their gender identity, are very fond of pulling out the "special rights" claim because they are protecting their own special rights. They don't want everyone to have the same rights because the pool in which they swim will get more crowded. They don't want the competition.
So next time you point out special rights, make sure you take a hard look at who truly is enjoying special rights. Cuz it ain't us.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 12, 2012, 12:44:20 PM
There's a difference between using the word "like" and making the statement "it would be identical to". The analogy was not intended to say Republicans want to gas LGBT people and put them in concentration camps, only that voting for someone who does not support equality when it comes to LGBT people, when you are lesbian, gay, bi or trans, is encouraging more discrimination. But yes, I do believe certain conservatives would be more than happy to force us into reparative therapy until we're cured.
Providing equal rights is not supporting special classes or groups. Saying that non-LGBT people can enjoy certain rights and privileges that LGBT people can't enjoy is. You can't be fired for being straight but there are states where you can be fired for being gay. And the rest of the states make you run through the ringer should you be fired for being gay. Law is one thing, enforcement of those laws is quite another.
The "special rights" thing has been spun about for as long as those who are being discriminated against have demanded equal rights. And it's total BS! Those who truly enjoy special rights, the people who aren't being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their nationality or their gender identity, are very fond of pulling out the "special rights" claim because they are protecting their own special rights. They don't want everyone to have the same rights because the pool in which they swim will get more crowded. They don't want the competition.
So next time you point out special rights, make sure you take a hard look at who truly is enjoying special rights. Cuz it ain't us.
Your statement was, essentially, "Any transperson who would vote for a Republican is like a Jew who would vote for a Nazi." You are obviously an intelligent person, so you must realize how hurtful that comparison can be.
Republicans have traditionally and continue to support equal rights. It was the nascent Republican Party that fought to end slavery in the 1850s and 1860s.
It was the Republican Party, in the 1870s, that was the first major party to equal rights for women, including pay equity.
It was the Republican Party that provided the votes to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The problem with all legislation, like ENDA, that create "protected classes," is that they ultimately create preferences, quotas, etc. As we saw in the
Bakke case, preferences, such as affirmative action, can end up as reverse discrimination.
Like Dr.King, I believe that all people should be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin ... or faith ... or nationality ... or sexual orientation.
To be fair the 'Pubs could help out a little and stop acting like they are, and actively begin calling out their 'supporters' who advocate policies that our counter to our national interests and culture. This ain't the Republican party of the 1800s', and it's absurd to even provide that kind of comparision, just as bad as the Jew/Nazi one. It ain't even close to the Republican Party of the 1960, who 'provided the votes' (that's 'Pub speak for 'we didn't write or really support the bill but watch us take credit for it anyway') for the Civil Rights Act. That party was sane.
While I don't think that the Republican Party is racist per se, and indeed has many loyal followers of all stripes, it is the party that's number one with racists. And while I don't think the Republican Party is totally doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated, it's for sure the party that's number one with people who are. The Republicans intentionally drew to them the extreme margins of right-wing and Christian thought, and now they are paying the price for that.
Are those who don't agree with you "racists," "intellectually constipated," "humorless," and "doctrinaire"?
And while I don't find everyone I disagree with to be doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated, I can't ignore that not only do such people exist (and in seemingly record numbers), but they also seem diametrically opposed to the most basic values I cherish, and moreover represent an obstacle to progress and an impediment on the road to change. They are not just expressing a different point of view as rational people can, coming to differing conclusions based on the same facts, they are actively in the way and have nothing to add to the solution - and, in fact, they oppose the basic notion of a solution that's not based in a rigid ideological state using heavy police powers to enforce their particular notions of conformity.
I'm looking for more democratic solutions that would work to help promote liberty and justice for all in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm not interested in a theocratic police state based on a 2K+ old desert story, nor do I cherish some strange free-market world where a very few have almost everything, and all that could not sink or swim were just left there to float. We can do better than that, and have to just for basic social stability.
And while the Jew/Nazi comparison might seem heavy-handed (and it is) a comparison between an African-American voting States Rights is valid. Even if they are not going to kill you, still, why vote in people who oppose your most basic rights?
To be fair the 'Pubs could help out a little and stop acting like they are...
- Are those who don't agree with you "racists
- "Obama admires and attempts to emulate modern socialism, he a traitor to our founding principals"
...To be fair the 'Pubs could help out a little and stop acting like they are
He's not a socialist, nor a marxist in any sense other than I'm sure he's read the stuff and some of it makes some sense. He believes in corporatism of the first rank, a 1% - with a wife who was 1% all in her own right - total Ivy League all the way (his wife too) and the Ivy League does not participate in the Young Marxists Program. Famous American Marxists from Harvard and Yale is a pretty thin volume indeed. It's not about communism, it's about capitalism and consumerism - that's what they teach. He's no more or less in support of 'socialist' principals than the general public, or even the American Business Class who signed off on the minor changes in medical stuff.
And like it or not, he's President of the United States, and not a traitor. To call him such just seems as over the top as the Jew/Nazi deal.
And while I'm not buying the black-helicopters, FEMA concentration camps, I'm not naive enough to think that we don't have people planning for massive civil disruption either. Who in charge of making those decisions (when, not 'if') either a systemic breakdown, a natural disaster, a man-made disaster, or a massive economic blow-out occurs on such a scale* as to cause civic order to break down is not a minor issue to consider. And I for one have little to no faith that someone like Pat Buchanan, Rick Santorum, Sara Palin, and on, and on, and on... would put people in charge who might consider 'gayness' as something to be separated out, or 'good church going folk' as entitled to special treatment and considerations.
* - I'm thinking of a tanker sinking in the Straights of Hormuz, the Euro collapsing, Big West Coast Quake taking out LA or SF, or Seattle (number one port, huge disruption), mono-crop failure, two major refineries going down at the same time, civil insurrection - happy thoughts.
If I offended anyone it was unintentional and I apologize to anyone offended. But I do believe the concept of supporting anyone who openly promotes discrimination against you borders on masochism. How masochistic it is depends on how much you might suffer by supporting them.
Jamie, your references to the Republican party of the past no longer apply to today's presidential candidates. Even Ronald Reagan would be considered a moderate compared to today's presidential hopefuls. And I think that's why it's so hard for dyed-in-the-wool Republicans to make up their mind about who they will support this election. These candidates are too far from their comfort level. And I think we can credit this extremism at least in part to lobbyists like Grover Norquist. These lobbyists come to town with boatloads of cash and our elected officials can't turn it down.
QuoteAnd while the Jew/Nazi comparison might seem heavy-handed (and it is) a comparison between an African-American voting States Rights is valid. Even if they are not going to kill you, still, why vote in people who oppose your most basic rights?
While my analogy may have been heavy-handed, there is still a death of sorts that some who are discriminated against suffer. When their discrimination takes away your ability to support yourself financially, your ability to live without fear of physical violence or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it's a social death. I, and many I know, know this first hand. You come out and suddenly you are lower than whale ->-bleeped-<-. Suddenly you find yourself unemployed, unable to get a job, pay your bills, feed yourself or your family. Family and friends abandon you and you find yourself out in the cold. It's like dying a thousand deaths.
Then you see these right wing, christian-types standing in front of the mic talking about how we don't deserve the same rights as everyone else and that any attempt to change the attitude of prejudice is the same as creating special rights for us.
If I could place any one of these dopes in my shoes for a year, they would be singing a very different tune, that is if they didn't take their own life first. And many of us do. So maybe my analogy wasn't so heavy-handed after all.
Quote from: tekla on January 13, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
To be fair the 'Pubs could help out a little and stop acting like they are, and actively begin calling out their 'supporters' who advocate policies that our counter to our national interests and culture. This ain't the Republican party of the 1800s', and it's absurd to even provide that kind of comparision, just as bad as the Jew/Nazi one. It ain't even close to the Republican Party of the 1960, who 'provided the votes' (that's 'Pub speak for 'we didn't write or really support the bill but watch us take credit for it anyway') for the Civil Rights Act. That party was sane.
(snip)
I think the history of the GOP shows an important trend.
Political change requires the building of consensus. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed solely on the support of the majority Democrat Party. ENDA did not pass when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Executive branch from 2009 to 2011.
As a way of gauging party support for the CRA , in the House, Republicans voted in support 138-34. In the Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-6.
Southern Democrats in the House voted against the bill 7-87; in the Senate against 1-20.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 13, 2012, 10:08:05 AM
(Snip)
While my analogy may have been heavy-handed, there is still a death of sorts that some who are discriminated against suffer. When their discrimination takes away your ability to support yourself financially, your ability to live without fear of physical violence or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it's a social death. I, and many I know, know this first hand. You come out and suddenly you are lower than whale ->-bleeped-<-. Suddenly you find yourself unemployed, unable to get a job, pay your bills, feed yourself or your family. Family and friends abandon you and you find yourself out in the cold. It's like dying a thousand deaths.
(Snip)
I admire you for the courage of your convictions. What you experienced is unforgivable and is every transperson's worst nightmare - me included.
But, as I recall, you live in a State that has ENDA-type legislation, passed by and regulated by the Democrats, and it didn't work for you. The State agency that was supposed to protect your rights, managed by a gay man who should have been supportive of you, failed to do its duty.
Why do you think federal legislation would work any better?
As I said to Terkla in the post, above, the path to real, lasting change, is to build consensus. That means reaching out to those you have been, heretofore, vilifying. I believe in bridges, not fences.
Well in most places political parties are based on ideology. But in the US (at least until quite recently) they had some vague ideological values, but there was also a lot of history (there is a reason that until the passage of the Civil Rights Act that most Southern political types were Democrats and not Republicans. But (and here's that racism again), the passage of the Civil Rights Act (and others) by the Democrats was considered somehow worse than winning the Civil War, and that odious lurch toward liberty and justice for all caused them to leave the party of Civil Rights and turn Republican.
Also other historical factors, as well as cultural and economic factors (and race, ethnicity, social class, occupation, geographical), created an environment where both parties (well the Republicans used to) had members that ranged from tree-huggin' hippie types - or at least social liberals - to rock-ribbed conservatives. And there are places that irregardless of your ideology if you want to go into political-type stuff you're not really going to have a choice, such is the hold of say the Republicans in rural Texas these days, or the Democrats in SF/Marin/Sonoma. In those places there really isn't another party, and if you are serious you are going to play in the only game in town.
Now, of course the notion that the best decisions over time are those that result from a broad based consensus (of reasonable people) is not new. I think the Greeks called it democracy. (They also invented the term 'orgy', pretty smart those Greeks were.) But if you examine times of substantial change that were required by extreme circumstances you'll find that they are largely one party affairs (post-Civil War Reconstruction, The New Deal, The Reagan Years). And then you have the entire kicker of 'reasonable people' - you know, rational beings. And in many of those times part of what brought on the troubles was one of the parties was afflicted by some form of temporary madness and drifted far into the extreme where there are no rational people, where there is no reason - and most of all - where any sort of consensus and compromise is impossible.
And that's real close to where a lot of those 'Pub candidates are now (and where the Dems were back in the early 70s - just in the opposite direction).
Besides, I've seen no proof to counter what I said on the first page of this post (and lot's to indicate I was spot-on) - that the fix is in, and it's going to be Mitt, it was always going to be Mitt, that's the way they operate. It's like going into a championship game with a team that's lost more games then they have won. And that's Mitt.
Quote from: tekla on January 15, 2012, 11:07:11 PM
Well in most places political parties are based on ideology. But in the US (at least until quite recently) they had some vague ideological values, but there was also a lot of history (there is a reason that until the passage of the Civil Rights Act that most Southern political types were Democrats and not Republicans. But (and here's that racism again), the passage of the Civil Rights Act (and others) by the Democrats was considered somehow worse than winning the Civil War, and that odious lurch toward liberty and justice for all caused them to leave the party of Civil Rights and turn Republican.
Also other historical factors, as well as cultural and economic factors (and race, ethnicity, social class, occupation, geographical), created an environment where both parties (well the Republicans used to) had members that ranged from tree-huggin' hippie types - or at least social liberals - to rock-ribbed conservatives. And there are places that irregardless of your ideology if you want to go into political-type stuff you're not really going to have a choice, such is the hold of say the Republicans in rural Texas these days, or the Democrats in SF/Marin/Sonoma. In those places there really isn't another party, and if you are serious you are going to play in the only game in town.
Now, of course the notion that the best decisions over time are those that result from a broad based consensus (of reasonable people) is not new. I think the Greeks called it democracy. (They also invented the term 'orgy', pretty smart those Greeks were.) But if you examine times of substantial change that were required by extreme circumstances you'll find that they are largely one party affairs (post-Civil War Reconstruction, The New Deal, The Reagan Years). And then you have the entire kicker of 'reasonable people' - you know, rational beings. And in many of those times part of what brought on the troubles was one of the parties was afflicted by some form of temporary madness and drifted far into the extreme where there are no rational people, where there is no reason - and most of all - where any sort of consensus and compromise is impossible.
And that's real close to where a lot of those 'Pub candidates are now (and where the Dems were back in the early 70s - just in the opposite direction).
Besides, I've seen no proof to counter what I said on the first page of this post (and lot's to indicate I was spot-on) - that the fix is in, and it's going to be Mitt, it was always going to be Mitt, that's the way they operate. It's like going into a championship game with a team that's lost more games then they have won. And that's Mitt.
Some southern Democrats did go over to the Republican Party. For example, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (who, interestingly, fathered a child out-of-wedlock, by a black woman). But most did not, like George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Harry Byrd, William Fulbright, James Eastland, Russell Long, John Stennis, Lester Maddox. The list is rather long.
But if you suggest that the Republican Party became a haven for racists, you're wrong. For example, when David Duke proclaimed himself a Republican, the Louisiana Republican establishment disavowed him.
No real Republican tolerates racial bigotry and prejudice.
I enjoy reading your perspective on these issues, however, your recounting of political history smacks of revisionism!
But if you suggest that the Republican Party became a haven for racists, you're wrong.
Well I want to be clear. I don't think the Republican Party is based on inherent racism, but they did practice it on an institutional level. There is no doubt however that it is the #1 political party for racists here in 2012. It began to clearly and openly steer that course in 1966 when it began to pick up people who had left the Dems over the Civil Rights issue, and by 1969 it was the winning strategy in the presidential race, a strategy that every 'Pub running for President followed until the Reagan years when they were just brought into the party outright along with the Christian Right - despite lots, and lots, and lots of warnings from real conservatives like Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater about what that would do in the long run.
But hey here are some 'real Republicans' saying it.
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "->-bleeped-<-, ->-bleeped-<-, ->-bleeped-<-." By 1968 you can't say "->-bleeped-<-"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
Bob Herbert, New York Times, quoting Lee Atwater (advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Republican National Committee) from 1981 interview with the author.
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats
Kevin Phillips, one of Nixon's campaign workers in '68 who is credited (perhaps incorrectly as he's pointing out) with coming up with the Southern Stragity.
By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.
Ken Melman, RNC Chair, apologizing for the Southern Strategty in 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html)
If that's not inherently racist, then it's a racism of convenience - using racism and racists to gain power and money. Which in it's own way is a lot worse then the average trailer park KKK nut with a confederate flag flying, because those people knew better, and did it anyway.
***
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (who, interestingly, fathered a child out-of-wedlock, by a black woman). There is absolutely nothing interesting about that at all. It's pretty typical behavior for male members of an entitled ruling class to think they can stick their penis into any convenient receptacle and then turn around and deny that person their dignity and most basic human (and American) rights. So sure, she was OK to ->-bleeped-<-, (and that's spot-on, because he sure didn't 'make love' to her or do it out of tenderness, he just hosed her) but don't let her go to 'your' school, or 'your' church, or swim in the same river as you, or watch a movie in the same theater as you, or show up at your house as anything more than hired help. I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the ->-bleeped-<- race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches. That's classic Strom, running for President in 1948. Oh yeah, he was 22, she was 16 - today we would call that rape/child sexual abuse and he would not be seated in the US Senate he would be being asked by Chris Hansen to 'take a seat over there.'
***
But most did not, like George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Harry Byrd, William Fulbright, James Eastland, Russell Long, John Stennis, Lester Maddox. The list is rather long.
They didn't then, but by the 80s they would have changed, or just become DINOs like Strom was. And, at that, in 1954 the Dems blocked Strom from running as a Dem.
***
your recounting of political history smacks of revisionism
That's cute. I have a word-of-the-day calender too. But like Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride said: You keep using that word — I don't think it means what you think it means. What I wrote is pretty much the mainstream consensus in American Political History, the exact polar opposite to 'revisionism'. Here is how Wiki (the most mainstream source of commonly believed stuff) describes The Southern Strategy:
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism and fears of lawlessness among Southern white voters and appealing to fears of growing federal power in social and economic matters (generally lumped under the concept of states rights). Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixicrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
I had written: But in the US (at least until quite recently) they had some vague ideological values, but there was also a lot of history (there is a reason that until the passage of the Civil Rights Act that most Southern political types were Democrats and not Republicans. But (and here's that racism again), the passage of the Civil Rights Act (and others) by the Democrats was considered somehow worse than winning the Civil War, and that odious lurch toward liberty and justice for all caused them to leave the party of Civil Rights and turn Republican.
That seems to be pretty much the same statement with the same facts, I just write more casually than Wiki does.
And, within the historical profession that's a loaded word. First of all every work of history is a revision of what has gone before or else there would be no need to write it again.
Second you really have to do it - I mean come up with a radically different conclusion than is commonly agreed to. My idea of a classical piece of historical revisionism is a 1974 book called Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman where they argued that in the Pre-Civil War era slaves lived longer and healthier lives than their white counterparts in New England factories. Because slave owners approached slave production as a business enterprise, there were some limits on the amount of exploitation and oppression they inflicted on the slaves, where factories had no such economic incentive to treat their workers well. Fogel based this analysis largely on plantation records and claimed that slaves worked less, were better fed and whipped only occasionally. Needless to say, that point (as well as some of the others that were actually more important in the book - such as American slavery was extremely productive, more so than Northern farms, and very profitable and was not going to go away on it's own as Southern historians tended to claim - were not exactly received with open arms, or open minds. Now in that sense I can't claim I'm doing any sort of revision, I'm not a historian in the same ballpark as those two guys, as much as I might want to be. At least not yet, maybe my technological history of rock music might end up that way. I can only hope.
And, third, anymore it tends to get used for things like Holocaust deniers and conspiracy kooks, and that's not me either.
And - don't take this wrong but... I don't think you've read and studied enough of the American Historical cannon to be able to differentiate between the interpretations of the various schools - or even between the schools themselves. And, not knowing the cannon, you can't know what is - and what is not - revisionism. Thus your use of the world sounds all 'buzzwordish' (like the Alinsky stuff), it's stuff you've read somewhere as opposed to insight gained from study.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 15, 2012, 03:20:49 AM
But, as I recall, you live in a State that has ENDA-type legislation, passed by and regulated by the Democrats, and it didn't work for you. The State agency that was supposed to protect your rights, managed by a gay man who should have been supportive of you, failed to do its duty.
Why do you think federal legislation would work any better?
Yes, Illinois has anti-trans legislation and the department in place to investigate such failed to do its job. But they don't fail just in the area of trans or even LGBT related claims. It's an across the board thing. I've spent a lot of time looking for investigations that found in the Complainant's favor and I have yet to find one. Even sexual harassment, one of the hot buttons of discrimination, doesn't seem to have any better success in finding for the Complainant.
Is that Democrat or just plain politics? I say it's the latter. When you think of the implications to a state that gains a reputation for supporting employees and not employers, it's easy to understand why they so often fail in doing a proper investigation. Employers would leave to find a state where they are allowed to act however they want without consequence.
But the bottom line is I can see no logical reason to support anyone who refuses to support me in my fight to be seen, in the eyes of the government, as being the same as everyone else. Today's Pubs have time and again stood steadfast in their refusal to support equal rights for all citizens.
Rick Santorum has just teamed up with the Family Research Council in a South Carolina rally. The FRC is listed as a hate group (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/family-research-council) by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FRC's president, Tony Perkins, introduced Santorum at a rally yesterday. Maybe Santorum thinks Perkins will be able to rid him of his closet gayness.
I have a personal problem with any politician, especially a presidential hopeful, teaming up with a hate group. But it looks like Newt, the thrice married, adulterous, "let's have an open marriage" (said to his wife suffering from MS), seems to be the darling of the S.C. Republicans. What does that say about the S.C. voters.
Maybe it's time to cast a vote for
Stephen Colbert Herman Cain.
I'm in love with the entire line of Newt's thinking that "It's only wrong when other people do it." And once the primaries move out of Racist Acres down in SC and Flordia, and more north and west he'll be toast. But current pols have Romney beating Obama by 7% in Texas. Trouble being, McCain beat Obama by 15% in Texas in the last election. And, at that, Obama hasn't even started his campaign.
The Republican Convention might as well be held on Costa Concordia.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 20, 2012, 10:36:13 AM
Yes, Illinois has anti-trans legislation and the department in place to investigate such failed to do its job. But they don't fail just in the area of trans or even LGBT related claims. It's an across the board thing. I've spent a lot of time looking for investigations that found in the Complainant's favor and I have yet to find one. Even sexual harassment, one of the hot buttons of discrimination, doesn't seem to have any better success in finding for the Complainant.
Is that Democrat or just plain politics? I say it's the latter. When you think of the implications to a state that gains a reputation for supporting employees and not employers, it's easy to understand why they so often fail in doing a proper investigation. Employers would leave to find a state where they are allowed to act however they want without consequence.
But the bottom line is I can see no logical reason to support anyone who refuses to support me in my fight to be seen, in the eyes of the government, as being the same as everyone else. Today's Pubs have time and again stood steadfast in their refusal to support equal rights for all citizens.
Rick Santorum has just teamed up with the Family Research Council in a South Carolina rally. The FRC is listed as a hate group (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/family-research-council) by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FRC's president, Tony Perkins, introduced Santorum at a rally yesterday. Maybe Santorum thinks Perkins will be able to rid him of his closet gayness.
I have a personal problem with any politician, especially a presidential hopeful, teaming up with a hate group. But it looks like Newt, the thrice married, adulterous, "let's have an open marriage" (said to his wife suffering from MS), seems to be the darling of the S.C. Republicans. What does that say about the S.C. voters.
Maybe it's time to cast a vote for Stephen Colbert Herman Cain.
The FRC is hardly a "hate group". It responded to the SPLC by noting that the listing was "the left's smear campaign of conservatives."
But my question to you was, why do you think federal legislation would work any better than the law you have in your own state?
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 10:49:15 AM
I'm in love with the entire line of Newt's thinking that "It's only wrong when other people do it." And once the primaries move out of Racist Acres down in SC and Flordia, and more north and west he'll be toast. But current pols have Romney beating Obama by 7% in Texas. Trouble being, McCain beat Obama by 15% in Texas in the last election. And, at that, Obama hasn't even started his campaign.
The Republican Convention might as well be held on Costa Concordia.
You are whistling past the graveyard. Even the Obama campaign recognizes their perilous situation. Why do you think they want to raise and spend 1 BILLION dollars to get re-elected?
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 10:49:15 AM
And once the primaries move out of Racist Acres down in SC and Flordia, and more north and west he'll be toast.
Newt's not nearly as conservative as many other GOP candidates and has far more sophisticated policy ideas than most movement conservatives. He actually wouldn't dismantle as much of the government as many conservatives. Must of his super conservative talk is to rally the base. He'll be toast because he is so irregular and unpredictable with the stuff he says. He doesn't poll well with independent voters and he can't be trusted not to blow an entire election with one or two stupid comments at exactly the wrong time.
Why do you think they want to raise and spend 1 BILLION dollars to get re-elected?
Because money is speech, and more money is more speech. It's going to be dumped into swing areas and also into places where the incumbent Republican senators and congresspeople are seen as vulnerable hoping to get a coattail effect, this election is going to be all about control of Congress, they've all but given up on beating Obama, which explains the people they've got running.
Newt, Mister Open Marriage and a master at serial adultery and the only Speaker ever in the history of the US forced to resign on ethics charges running on family values? That's not going to wash, he's on a book tour, and the more outrageous he is the more books he sells, but also the more independent votes he loses.
Quote from: juliekins on December 30, 2011, 09:39:27 AM
That's not a GOP poll, it's an EKG of Michelle Bachman's brain! :icon_google:
EEG. An EKG is done on the heart, and they'd have trouble finding hers.
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 01:49:26 PM
Why do you think they want to raise and spend 1 BILLION dollars to get re-elected?
Because money is speech, and more money is more speech. It's going to be dumped into swing areas and also into places where the incumbent Republican senators and congresspeople are seen as vulnerable hoping to get a coattail effect, this election is going to be all about control of Congress, they've all but given up on beating Obama, which explains the people they've got running.
Newt, Mister Open Marriage and a master at serial adultery and the only Speaker ever in the history of the US forced to resign on ethics charges running on family values? That's not going to wash, he's on a book tour, and the more outrageous he is the more books he sells, but also the more independent votes he loses.
How soon we forget!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F71%2FSpeakerWright.jpg&hash=5b3576f6dd9244a22114fc41187166c3845a0869)
Wright was never found guilty of anything, never sanctioned and fined by the House itself, and was not investigated by the IRS. The charges, destroyed his leadership ability thus forcing him out, Gingrich was pushed out by what amounted to coup within his own party after being found guilty and given a fine of over a quarter of a million dollars, he resigned a few days after his reelection in another one of his famous snit fits (we got a great one the other night too). The remark that "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals" is pretty funny because those people being a lot of the folks he himself helped elect. One followed a course of trying to keep at least a shread of dignity about them, the other a scorched earth policy, one that the current campaign is also running.
I found it funny that even Mitt had enough of Newt tying himself to Reagan, and talking about 'how closely' he worked with RR, and how they did all that great stuff together when the reality was, as Mitt pointed out: "I mean, I looked at the Reagan diary. You're mentioned once in Ronald Reagan's diary. And in the diary, he says you had an idea in a meeting of young congressmen, and it wasn't a very good idea and he dismissed it. That's the entire mention."
And hey, even you must see the humor in Newt - of all people - saying that sexual conduct is not a matter of public debate. It played well for the audience, but that kind of stuff works poorly in the nation as a whole. Divorce is one thing, two is pushing it, but when both of them come with adultery attached (and both of the divorced women were sick at the time), it's going to be something that is not easily dismissed by attacking the messenger because you can't dispute the message. It plays very, very poorly with women too, as it make him look like someone who thinks that women (as well as marriage vows) can be disposed of whenever the mighty wiener gets hard and heads out like a heat-seeking missile to find the next closest target. I doubt that it drives them to Obama (who has a clear margin with women) but it does result in them staying home and not voting (or voting the down-ticket only).
I never thought I would live to see the day that Conservatives - and some pretty rabid Social Conservatives also - would tout a serial adulterer as an acceptable candidate, but it's a pretty clear indication that they are desperate.
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 06:27:43 PM
Wright was never found guilty of anything, never sanctioned and fined by the House itself, and was not investigated by the IRS.
Yeah, and Nixon wasn't impeach either.
You make a distinction without a difference. Wright was forced out as Speaker because of the ethics charges.
Gingrich is only the second speaker to be subjected to an ethics committee investigation. Former Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, resigned in 1989 rather than continue to fight charges initiated by Gingrich himself. - NY Times, 12-22-96
Regarding the "fine" paid by Gingrich from campaign funds:
The ethics committee that handled the charges against Gingrich went out of business at midnight last night without resolving complaints that the speaker received improper gifts, contributions and support from GOPAC, the political action committee he once headed. House Democrats are likely to submit those charges to the new ethics committee.
In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is looking into the use of tax-deductible charitable contributions to finance the college course Gingrich taught, which was at the center of the ethics case, and the ethics committee is making the material it gathered available to the tax agency....
But some lawmakers said the $300,000 financial penalty, described as a reimbursement to the ethics committee for the additional cost Gingrich caused it when he gave it false information, was too severe. - Washington Post, 1-22-97
As it turned out, the IRS investigation of the House Ethics Committee allegations led to Gingrich and the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" being cleared of any legal wrongdoing. The IRS ruling concluded, "... he did not illegally use tax-exempt money for political purposes, one of the main accusations against him."
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2012, 06:27:43 PM
And hey, even you must see the humor in Newt - of all people - saying that sexual conduct is not a matter of public debate. It played well for the audience, but that kind of stuff works poorly in the nation as a whole. Divorce is one thing, two is pushing it, but when both of them come with adultery attached (and both of the divorced women were sick at the time), it's going to be something that is not easily dismissed by attacking the messenger because you can't dispute the message. It plays very, very poorly with women too, as it make him look like someone who thinks that women (as well as marriage vows) can be disposed of whenever the mighty wiener gets hard and heads out like a heat-seeking missile to find the next closest target. I doubt that it drives them to Obama (who has a clear margin with women) but it does result in them staying home and not voting (or voting the down-ticket only).
Of course, we must remember that Gingrich led the impeachment of Clinton, not for the President's sexual peccidillos, but because he lied about them under oath.
Hey, and where is MoveOn.org? After all, this is "just about sex." ::)
Gingrich is why I know the word "monogamish," and for that he will always hold a special place in my heart. :)
No worries, he'll leave us for a younger, hotter nation in no time.
Newt has shown (time after time) signs of chaos in his personal life, outright instability, poor impulse-control, and callousness toward others - and he's this weeks front runner?
And everybody going to get on-board with his whole educational policy, which seems to be "kids need less education and more training being janitors." How's that going to work at private schools? Are parents who are paying $10K a year for a private HS going to let their sons and daughters trade educational hours for a mop?
I like how family values is using the kids from your marriage #1, to attack wife #2 and praise wife #3.
This really shows you how much they have lost focus in that party. Honestly there are many people out there who only voted for Obama because he was black. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to win. But the baby boomer generation finally had the chance to undo the civil rights era, to give Dr. Martin Luther King Jr his dream. Obama ran a clever campaign that way with his "Yes we Can" It totally tapped into the lost days of 1968, the year that King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.
Great video about on youtube called "1968 The Year that Changed a Generation." So plenty of these folks voted for him for that reason alone. And Obama blew it. His hands were somewhat tied because of Bush's mess. But he didn't come across as a strong leader.
If Ronald Reagan was a candidate right now Obama wouldn't stand a chance. If they actually had a strong leader, well liked, well spoken who seemed like a president they would take it in a heartbeat.
However they all seem to be like a bunch of lodge brothers who don't have a clue in the world. Sigh.
Honestly there are many people out there who only voted for Obama because he was black
You mean that huge migration of African-Americans and people of color who defected from the Republicans to vote Democratic just that once, 'for the brother'? The polling information showed that few people who were not Democratic leaning to begin with voted for him, he did however get a lot of people who registered to vote for the first time. The 'Pubs on the other hand, coming off of Bush II and nominating who they did pretty much punted the entire deal.
If Ronald Reagan was a candidate right now Obama wouldn't stand a chance.
If Ronnie were to run now he'd find that he was much to liberal to get the Republican nomination. That, and he never faced a highly-funded negative onslaught. Remember Ronnie's 11th Commandment - "Thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans"? Yeah, about that... I'm not sure he would fare all that well against a highly negative campaign.
Obama ran a clever campaign that way with his "Yes we Can" It totally tapped into the lost days of 1968, the year that King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.
In fact, one of the most surprising demographics from the last election was how many people under 30 supported him, people who hold none of that personally. You have to be at least 50 years old to remember any of that as anything other than old news footage.
So? And no I'm not saying black people voted for Obama because he was black. I'm saying many white people voted for Obama because he was black because it was an opportunity to change history. It was no longer the typical election of the lesser of two evils. Just because MORE people voted for him that were younger doesn't mean that he didn't use this campaign strategy. The Occupy movement is using the exact same strategy. Trying to redo the grassroots movements of the 60s.
And if you think you have to 'be 50 years old to remember" means squat, think of the reaction to Hillary Clinton pointing out the Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June and was still on the campaign trail when she tried to explain why she wouldn't drop out. The backlash was insane over that. You don't need to "remember" history to be educated enough to know it.
Well, let's ponder how many people in 1968 voted one way or the other because of the events of WWII. After all, that was was a lot closer (about 1/2) to '68, then '68 was to '08 (easily more important also). The only real 'historical' vote goes on within the party faithful who will vote for their party, or not vote - as was the case last time with the 'Pubs who saw massively poor turnout in a lot of places because McCain was seen as as MeTooBushII person, and a RINO.
That Reagan would win, hell, "Generic Republican" beats Obama in every poll, tragically they have to nominate a real person and that's when it hits the skids. You'd have a hard time finding three people who are harder to like than old frothy, Rick Santorum (whose honorary chair in Florida is quoted this morning as saying "gays 'make god want to vomit'", Mitt (who's taking the gloves off now, well just as soon as his butler does it for him), and Newt one the most consistently unlikable people in American politics (and that's no small feat).
Added to that, you're going to have a huge union factor (and thanks to CU they too can spend unlimited cash) in 3 critical swing states, Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. And one thing that unions have that PACs don't is the ability to turn out lots of people, not only for the election, but also for the campaign work.
You've got a highly polarized and clearly split electorate, but two factors seem to help the Dems. One that their basic demographics skew lower in age, (which means more Dems than R's over the long run as the Tea Party types tend to die off). Second is that states themselves are becoming more red or blue as time goes on. And it's the richer, more educated states (those with an industrial base) that are going more blue, and the poorer ag states that sink deeper into the red. And though there is a nation-wide two-party system, on local levels its' becoming much less that way. And when you have to toss the two largest electoral states (California and New York) as highly-unlikely to ever go red, then you need to run the table on the rest.
The single biggest problem that Obama faces is one of the easiest to deal with - that he hasn't unified the country at all. And where that might be an issue in normal times (and should be) in fact it won't be any sort of issue at all. Because the GOP can't campaign against that without admitting they're part of the problem.
Add to that, folks could consider voting for Mitt, but they will never vote Newt. But If Mittens wins the nomination, he will be Palin'd. The GOP will force him to take Santorum or one of those as his running mate to appeal to the base, and that will scare the moderates away. An electable GOP candidate doesn't appeal to the nutjobs, and a nutjob scares away the middle 40%. It's kind of hilarious.
I don't think so. And polls are not so reliable. I think it is completely different because Obama is black. There is a huge amount of white guilt in the US and many people I know voted for him simply because they didn't want the chance to have a black president to come and go. They didn't want to be the person who let it go.
The rest of what your post says I do agree with. He hasn't unified the country at all. And the reason I mentioned Reagan wasn't about his politics but about his likeability. That's what I'm pointing out. His charisma. The fact that in all their candidates they can't find one neutral guy that tows the party line without trying to make a noose out of it is scary. They have no one to really run. If they did Obama would lose.
So the only reason he even stands a chance is because of how screwed up the Republican party is. Also please try to understand what I'm saying about white guilt. It's got nothing to do with how close or far history is. I'm suprised that you seem to think that people younger than 30 don't know anything about the civil rights movement because they don't remember it. ????? Do you have an education? I've never met a person that doesn't know about it. It's part of common education.
Beyond that those white guilty people who voted just because they wanted to vote for a black candidate are really disappointed about how Obama handled things and I think that the Republicans could snag their vote if they ran someone really charismatic and leader like. But sadly for them they can't seem to conjure one up.
mixie,
I interact with people from all over the U.S. from Wisconsin to the East Coast to Florida to California of mixed race from lower class to upper class and I can honestly say that not one of them voted for Obama because he is black (he is only half black by the way). Also, out of all the people I know under the age of 30, very few of them know anything at all about the 60's political environment and civil rights movement. It is one thing to have a few hours of public school instruction on the subject as a teenager, but it is entirely different to have lived in that era and watching daily news coverage of protests and riots and Vietnam war body counts and witnessing first hand the discrimination and personal quest for freedom (civil rights) and the resulting carnage.
I do however know many people who did not vote for Obama simply because of his race. White guilt? I just don't see it.
Jennifer
What do you do for a living. Perhaps my experience is skewed. I educate teachers. So I suppose they are well versed. But I also teach entrance exams for college and I deal with many different kinds of people. I have never met a person who didn't know what the Civil Rights movement was. Or who Martin Luther King Jr. was you know his national Holiday Last week. So I don't know what to tell you. But if you do know people like that they are likely to be uneducated in a scary way. Then I can see them being hicks.
Still I don't think either of you understand what I am saying. Racist people aren't going to vote for Obama this time around again any way. Neither are strong Republicans. When you work with an incumbent elected official, your concern is not winning over people who wouldn't have voted for him anyway. It's about LOSING the votes he got last time around.
I am saying that Obama stands to lose the votes of white people who voted for him out of wanting to vote for a black president. And believe me there are large numbers of people who did. He stands to lose these voters.
And I am also saying that if the Republican party ran a strong charismatic candidate, those voters might switch.
There are also large numbers of people who think he is doing a terrible job. He stands to lose those votes as well.
If the Republican party ran a strong charismatic candidate, those voters might switch as well.
However the Republican party doesn't have a strong charismatic candidate. It shows how messed up they are. They could win this election very easily with the right candidate. They have had 4 years to come up with one. And they haven't.
I am not talking about any other people who voted or didn't vote for Obama. Those people have absolutely nothing to do with the point that I am making.
Hope that makes it clearer.
I'm proud to say that except for my private college-prep HS (salutatorian), my BS (Phi Beta Kappa/Dean's List/President's List), my Master's Degree (Phi Kappa Alpha) and My PhD (Phi Kappa Phi), that I'm completely self-educated.
And I also know that after a decade of teaching history at a major university that history affects people a lot less than current events do. Obama's anti-war stand helped him out last time a lot more than the number of people who thought it would be 'cool' to have a black President. Those who felt it was - at long last - some vindication and validation of the Civil Rights Era, those people were over 60, not under 30. And I'm pretty sure that this time around people under 30/35 are going to be more worried about the crippling levels of debt their college education put them under, combined with a lack of jobs that would require (and compensate for) that level of education.
I educate teachers. So I suppose they are well versed.
Ummm, in most colleges and universities the Department/College of Education have the lowest test scores of all the departments. They also have the lowest combined GPA at most schools. The highest SATs/cum GPA at my school were the College of Veterinary Science,1 followed by the College of Engineering and then the hard science majors.
1. It's much harder to get into a VetMed program than a human based medical school. For starters, there are a lot fewer of them.
tekla if you were really all these things, you wouldn't be trying to present your personal opinion as the truth. I am presenting my opinion. Your ranting is still only your opinion. Also I note that you don't source most of what you say. So that is a noticeable thing to me that shows a real lack of debate and discussion skills.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.
Also the question is not who is the most intelligent. The question is are people aware of the 1960s and the civil rights movement. I would argue that it is so well known in the media that it is a part of current events. It is not history. I find it suspect that you are a history teacher and would even propose this.
What kind of history did you teach?
More white voters voted for Obama than either Kerry or Gore.
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/ansolabehere_stewart.php (http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/ansolabehere_stewart.php)
Also Master degrees are a dime a dozen these days. You can get one online for crying out loud. Unless your degrees are from high falutin school and you received full scholarships color me not impressed.
I'm not even impressed with my own full Scholarship for my second masters at Columbia University. I dropped out because it was annoying.
Also do you realize the irony in your post. You state that teachers are basically the dumbest people academically and then point out that you were a teacher for a decade. So maybe you weren't a very good teacher and people were not interested in your classes. And so you think this means that across the board people don't like or care about history.
The civil rights movement is alive in the minds of Americans. That is for sure. People do know who Martin Luther King Jr. is. It's not some dated thing like the Korean war that no one cares about. It is part of the American tapestry.
Also I don't "teach" I teach teachers. Big difference. :)
Quote from: Felix on January 22, 2012, 10:54:41 PM
Gingrich is why I know the word "monogamish," and for that he will always hold a special place in my heart. :)
Serial monogamy is healthy.
Serial monogamy is healthy.
Serial adultery on the other hand is considered poor form with the family values folk. And it's public record that wife #2 was his hose-beast while he was still married to wife #1, and that wife #3 was his penis parking place while still married to wife #2.
Quote from: tekla on January 23, 2012, 08:53:21 AM
No worries, he'll leave us for a younger, hotter nation in no time.
Newt has shown (time after time) signs of chaos in his personal life, outright instability, poor impulse-control, and callousness toward others - and he's this weeks front runner?
Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton or any one of the Kennedys. I am surprised you have not jumped on the bandwagon.
And everybody going to get on-board with his whole educational policy, which seems to be "kids need less education and more training being janitors." How's that going to work at private schools? Are parents who are paying $10K a year for a private HS going to let their sons and daughters trade educational hours for a mop?
Not quite what he said.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended on Thursday his controversial plan to have schoolchildren from poor neighborhoods serve as janitors.
"A very poor neighborhood. You have kids that who are under law required to go to school. They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit in the clerical office, and greet people when they came in?" he said. "What if you paid them to work as an assistant librarian?"
He then discussed his proposal for having poor students serve as janitors. "Let me get down to the janitor thing, and these letters are written that janitorial work is really hard and really dangerous and this and that," he said. "Fine. So what if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom. And you pay them."
I like how family values is using the kids from your marriage #1, to attack wife #2 and praise wife #3.
It is understandable that the Democrat Left would seek to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and dependence on the government teat. It is how they have created a modern-day "slave" population of bloc voters.
Quote from: mixie on January 23, 2012, 09:05:06 AM
Honestly there are many people out there who only voted for Obama because he was black. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to win. But the baby boomer generation finally had the chance to undo the civil rights era, to give Dr. Martin Luther King Jr his dream. Obama ran a clever campaign that way with his "Yes we Can" It totally tapped into the lost days of 1968, the year that King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.
In some circles that effect has been termed "white liberal guilt."
One would hope we are beyond race politics, but it is much easier to play the"race card" than defend a record of abject failure.
Yes people are now saying that voters are harder on Obama because he is black. Which is nonsense. I see a lot of disappointment. I am disappointed myself. The push towards socialization solutions while the country is suffering economically is a disaster. So was bailing out Wall St. When Obama did that I thought to myself uh oh.
He was handed a difficult hand to begin with. I'm not so critical of him. I think he's as good as anyone else. He's lacking a lot of power and leadership. But he's not a total embarassment like Bush was.
My point is, that I think everyone is missing. This shows how craptastic the republican party is. They have had four years to come up with a Ronald Reagan and instead they have come up with a bunch of Ronald McDonalds. All the potential candidates are hideous disasters. I even thought maybe Cain had a shot there for a while but then all the sexual harassment.
Don't these people VET their candidates???? Can't they find one good hero in the mix?
Sadly it seems, no they cannot.
Quote from: tekla on January 23, 2012, 01:09:40 PM
I'm proud to say that except for my private college-prep HS (salutatorian), my BS (Phi Beta Kappa/Dean's List/President's List), my Master's Degree (Phi Kappa Alpha) and My PhD (Phi Kappa Phi), that I'm completely self-educated.
That's quite a resume. I especially like the last part.
I had hoped to do graduate study with the late Prof. Don Fehrenbacher, but my academics and profession went in another direction.
Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton or any one of the Kennedys.
Except neither of them were running on a morals platform. FTR, I worked for Brown in Iowa in 90. I hated Clinton then, and now.
So was bailing out Wall St. When Obama did that I thought to myself uh oh.
That was not Obama, but a continuation of the bail-out that was started under BushII. If you had been paying attention you should have been outraged when he put in Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Mark Patterson who all had ties to exactly the people who screwed the pooch.
The most cogent attacks against Obama come from the left, not the right.
BTTT
So what were the 1,000 words?
I just saw a chart. (well, and a good amount of snark ::))
For you viewing pleasure. You really need a program to know who the players in the topic are, but I was struck by the familiar themes in this two-year old topic and the recently locked one.
;D
Was this Necromancy necessary?
Quote from: Hikari on March 06, 2014, 08:07:07 AM
Was this Necromancy necessary?
Law of Conservation of Zombies. ::)
Quote from: Hikari on March 06, 2014, 08:07:07 AM
Was this Necromancy necessary?
Only if you have a strong quest for knowledge Grasshopper.
Otherwise... eh, not so much.
Quote from: Hikari on March 06, 2014, 08:07:07 AM
Was this Necromancy necessary?
This topic was first posted by a then-Global Moderator. It is interesting to revisit one's views and see how they change, or remain the same, with time.
Quote from: tekla on January 06, 2012, 07:34:33 PM
That means they can still collect donations.
A). They still have campaign debt to try to pay off
B). Of course, [Michelle Bachman is] a Republithug, why stop taking money just because you're no longer going to do the job? Yeesh, they are 'party of personal responsibility' and how could they be personally taken care of if they stop taking money?
Lovely.
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 06, 2012, 11:17:10 PM
When I spend more than I have I go into debt. No one is there to donate to help me pay that off. I say if you run for office and rack up a bunch of debt, it's your fault and you gotta get yourself out of it. And if people are donating to help you out, you have to pay taxes on it. But of course Bachmann will just get another grant from the government.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Personal responsibility only applies to certain people.
How much has the national debt risen in the past five years?
Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 07:10:39 AM
(Snip)
PS. I want god to strike dead the next one of these scumbags [Republicans] who says 'the government can't create jobs' as they try to get a government job.
Rage some?
Quote from: Jamie D on January 09, 2012, 04:58:20 PM
Mr. Obama's foreign policy began with the "bow, kowtow, and apology tour." And it hasn't improved since.
He is inconsistent (i.e. Egypt ... Libya ... Syria??), has destabilized Iraq, emboldened Iran, punted in Afghanistan, and enabled Islamo-fascism around the world. No one can argue the world is a safer place today than it was in 2008.
Any questions? LOLZ It is safer today than January 2012?
Quote from: Jamie D on January 11, 2012, 12:33:41 AM
Quote from: Vanora on January 10, 2012, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: Julie Marie on January 10, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
(Snip)
But regardless of who you like, if your trans, LGB, or just an advocate, supporting (most) Republicans is like a Jew in Nazi Germany supporting the Third Reich. By and large, the entire Republican party has stood steadfast in NOT supporting ENDA. They see LGBT people as third class citizens and, if given the ability to do so, would probably lock us all up in reparative therapy camps and keep us there until we're "cured". And I don't see even a glimmer of hope this attitude will change anytime in the near future.
I would say your analogy is a little off. The Third Reich went about killing 6 million Jews and millions of other people. Only someone in the victim group who had complete self loathing for their own race would have supported the Nazis.
I understand and am sensitive to your experience with workplace discrimination, but to compare Republicans to mass murders is over the top, hyperbolic, and just plain wrong.
Need I remind you that, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, in 2007-2008, and with a Democrat executive from 2009-2010, they failed to pass ENDA? Why was that?
Republicans, largely, treasure individual liberties and rights. I can not think of a single Republican in power who has advocated "camps" for gender variant people.
While I am opposed to discrimination and bigotry on all levels, there exist good reasons to oppose specific legislation. In general, I oppose creating special "classes" or "groups" of persons to afford special rights. You cannot create social harmony by dividing people into interest groups. Discrimination will be ended through understanding and education.
And not all GLBT organizations or spokespersons have supported ENDA. In 2009, for instance, Indiana Equality called ENDA a "new form of segregation."
Note the level of invective from the political left.
I'll add one last quote of mine:
Quote from: Jamie D on January 15, 2012, 03:20:49 AM
I admire you for the courage of your convictions. What you experienced is unforgivable and is every transperson's worst nightmare - me included.
But, as I recall, you live in a State that has ENDA-type legislation, passed by and regulated by the Democrats, and it didn't work for you. The State agency that was supposed to protect your rights, managed by a gay man who should have been supportive of you, failed to do its duty.
Why do you think federal legislation would work any better?
As I said to Terkla in the post, above, the path to real, lasting change, is to build consensus. That means reaching out to those you have been, heretofore, vilifying. I believe in bridges, not fences.
My personal philosophy remains unchanged.
It seems that this community, which strives for acceptance and equality in the cis-world, is not particularly tolerant of minority views.
The Pope is for gay marriage,
Weed legal over all states,
Marriage for all gays in all states,
We are out of Afghanistan and Iraq,
No war in Crimea or Nigeria,
Peace between Palestinians and Jews,
and the icing to the cake... Hillary first female President of the USA
the GOP is dead... they are going the way of the dodo bird.. LOL
The Left has done a real number on this nation... pity.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 06, 2014, 03:40:44 PM
I would say your analogy is a little off. The Third Reich went about killing 6 million Jews and millions of other people. Only someone in the victim group who had complete self loathing for their own race would have supported the Nazis.
I understand and am sensitive to your experience with workplace discrimination, but to compare Republicans to mass murders is over the top, hyperbolic, and just plain wrong.
Kinda like how conservatives compare Obama to Hitler, or call him a tyrant or dictator. While what she said was hyperbolic, it still has some merit. Voting Republican as someone who is LGBT is pretty self-detrimental on many levels.
QuoteNeed I remind you that, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, in 2007-2008, and with a Democrat executive from 2009-2010, they failed to pass ENDA? Why was that?
Republican filibuster. It's been the republican rulebook since Obama stepped into office to sabotage his presidency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU
In 2010, Mitch McConnell reaffirms this.
Record numbers of filibusters are happening (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster) during Obama's presidency.
QuoteRepublicans, largely, treasure individual liberties and rights. I can not think of a single Republican in power who has advocated "camps" for gender variant people.
Like the right to discriminate against people who are different than you. Can we please leave this in the 20th century?
QuoteWhile I am opposed to discrimination and bigotry on all levels, there exist good reasons to oppose specific legislation. In general, I oppose creating special "classes" or "groups" of persons to afford special rights. You cannot create social harmony by dividing people into interest groups.
You are opposed to discrimination and bigotry, yet support a party of discriminating bigots with no plans on changing that position, and support their right to discriminate.
QuoteDiscrimination will be ended through understanding and education.
Republicans cut education, and being socially conservative is the antithesis of understanding.
QuoteNote the level of invective from the political left.
Note the level of self-hatred from the LGBT political right.
Quote from: Nikko on March 06, 2014, 05:33:57 PM
The Left has done a real number on this nation... pity.
;)
QuoteRepublicans cut education, and being socially conservative is the antithesis of understanding.
Not only should we cut education spending because it's full of waste and fraud, we should just downsize virtually every government agency due to waste and fraud, some need to be closed all together.
Liberalism is antithetical to learning. NY mayor de blasio is shutting down three charter schools which are far out performing the public schools. Democrats are against school choice which is proven to drastically improve learning in math, language, and science. Perhaps not so much in the realm of liberal indoctrination. I can't imagine keeping children ignorant and destroying their futures to further my political desires, but this is exactly what democrats do every day and you are too by voting for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9PRqRFbDJlc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9PRqRFbDJlc)
BTW, I never hear republicans compare Obama to hitler, I've really only heard democrats call Bush and other republicans that. I do hear it said he's behaving as a dictator and I whole heartedly agree, because he is. Just recently, the 31st delay in obamacare was made by this president. He did so even as constitutional scholars testify before congress that this is unconstitutional and dangerous, this is the job of congress.
I don't see how supporting actions like these are helpful to any group, even the LGBT community.
I usually argue against ideas, rather than going after democrats or liberals specifically. But since you're saying my being a conservative (actually more libertarian, but I'm not ashamed of the conservative label) is wrong and bad for you and others, I'll make an exception in this case.
Quote from: Nikko on March 07, 2014, 09:13:11 AM
Not only should we cut education spending because it's full of waste and fraud, we should just downsize virtually every government agency due to waste and fraud, some need to be closed all together.
So you take the Ron Paul 'nuke everything that has to do with the federal government' approach? You mentioned that you're a libertarian, which is why I ask that. I don't want to digress too much on the subject of libertarianism, but it is one of the most self-serving, near-sighted, childish political ideologies that one can hold.
NSFW language in the video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbuDPO2LSX4
QuoteDemocrats are against school choice which is proven to drastically improve learning in math, language, and science. Perhaps not so much in the realm of liberal indoctrination. I can't imagine keeping children ignorant and destroying their futures to further my political desires, but this is exactly what democrats do every day and you are too by voting for them.
Not gonna comment on this paragraph oozing with projection
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9PRqRFbDJlc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9PRqRFbDJlc)
That woman at 0:35 is a moron. Gods forbid the mayor equalize the schools. Charter schools are publicly funded, but don't follow the same rules as public schools. They can sign contracts with corporations, and businesses (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/06/3511351/how-savvy-companies-can-use-nc.html) make (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/29/80-of-michigan-charter-schools-are-for-profits/) bank (http://www.examiner.com/article/who-profits-from-for-profit-charter-schools-florida) off of charter schools. Where's your concern about waste and spending when it comes to that?
QuoteBTW, I never hear republicans compare Obama to hitler, I've really only heard democrats call Bush and other republicans that. I do hear it said he's behaving as a dictator and I whole heartedly agree, because he is. Just recently, the 31st delay in obamacare was made by this president. He did so even as constitutional scholars testify before congress that this is unconstitutional and dangerous, this is the job of congress.
I don't see how supporting actions like these are helpful to any group, even the LGBT community.
Never hear republicans calling Obama Hitler? Are you joking me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Fwy5FeG9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIptSmuXPA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWEyVFfBN8s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8w-Ll0JXSUjust a handful of the mountain of examples of republicans calling Obama Hitler.
As far as dictatorship goes... why not go to North Korea for a few years and come back and tell me what a real dictatorship the US is.
31st delay? Try republicans in Congress trying for the 50th time to defund it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwbmABpXsBE
Hideyoshi, you continue to display all too common tactics of the far left... mischaracterization, distortion, lies, deception, strawmen, etc., etc., not interested...
Here's some real intelligence regarding Libertarianism...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kOeWoSFIEbI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kOeWoSFIEbI)
Hideyoshi, I respectfully suggest your argument is pointless. Just like in previous threads Nikko will say something controversial and provably false be it Rush Limbaugh having no views outside the mainstream, or Republicans have never compared Obama to Hitler; and then when you say something to rebuff this, she will make a broad attack on the left, dismiss what you say and continue more rhetoric. If you look at the previous threads you will see this is a pattern that repeats quite a few times. It isn't like someone with such strong and extreme positions is going to be swayed by anything anyway, so what is the purpose?
I will say Jamie D did, however make a point, one I vehemently disagree with and feel has little merit. That being said, it was a well articulated and reasonable point (no matter how much I disagree) and looked almost like an open invitation to have a meaningful debate. Perhaps it is a bit naive to think that a political debate on the internet, especially in a community that the vast majority of which supports ENDA, could have any meaningful outcome, but I have to give kudos to Jamie D for attempting to do this in good faith, and actually address the argument rather than just resorting to name calling as so many on both sides invariably do.
Quote from: Nikko on March 07, 2014, 04:04:00 PM
mischaracterization, distortion, lies, deception, strawmen, etc., etc., not interested...
More projection. I love it.
Quote from: Hikari on March 07, 2014, 04:39:51 PM
Hideyoshi, I respectfully suggest your argument is pointless. Just like in previous threads Nikko will say something controversial and provably false be it Rush Limbaugh having no views outside the mainstream, or Republicans have never compared Obama to Hitler; and then when you say something to rebuff this, she will make a broad attack on the left, dismiss what you say and continue more rhetoric. If you look at the previous threads you will see this is a pattern that repeats quite a few times. It isn't like someone with such strong and extreme positions is going to be swayed by anything anyway, so what is the purpose?
It's like debating a young earth creationist (which are nearly all conservative... funny how the mentality is the same). I somehow hold out a sliver a hope that I will put chinks in their armor and they might see the folly of their ways.
This thread reminds me of the hydra: cut off a head and another one promptly regrows in its place. No sooner is the "Left Wing" thread finally put out of its misery and the antagonism and vitriol emerge over here.
It's a caucus race. Nobody will win. :-\
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dana-mad.ru%2Fgal%2Fimages%2FRodney%2520Matthews%2FAlice%2520in%2520Wonderland%2Frodney_matthews_alice%2520in%2520wonderland_a%2520caucus%2520race_med.jpg&hash=f481883fe7d85d5cafbfe9c7e88063732c2d3dc4)
Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 07, 2014, 07:02:22 AM
Kinda like how conservatives compare Obama to Hitler, or call him a tyrant or dictator. While what she said was hyperbolic, it still has some merit. Voting Republican as someone who is LGBT is pretty self-detrimental on many levels.
Republican filibuster. It's been the republican rulebook since Obama stepped into office to sabotage his presidency.
In 2010, Mitch McConnell reaffirms this.
Record numbers of filibusters are happening (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster) during Obama's presidency.
Like the right to discriminate against people who are different than you. Can we please leave this in the 20th century?
You are opposed to discrimination and bigotry, yet support a party of discriminating bigots with no plans on changing that position, and support their right to discriminate.
Republicans cut education, and being socially conservative is the antithesis of understanding.
Note the level of self-hatred from the LGBT political right.
I have found
ad hominem attacks don't accomplish much. Tekla and Julie Marie were about as far left, politically, as any people on this board. True believers. They had a difficult time defending the 0bama legacy.
In fact, it was Julie Marie who first made the Nazi reference with regard to Republicans. But, just for the record, let's define "dictator":
dictator (dɪkˈteɪtə) —n: 1. a. a ruler who is not effectively restricted by a constitution, laws, recognized oppositionOkay, how many times has Mr 0bama ignored the brightlight deadlines in his own signature legislation? How many time has he declined to be bound by, for instance, existing immigration law? Is it not a requirement of office, in the Constitution, that the President "take care the laws are followed"?
I tend to put my principles into action through my works. I don't depend on the nanny state. By way of example, for the fourth year I will be participating in "Take Steps, Be Heard" - the fundraiser for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, to help find effective treatments and cures for this group of conditions. I hope to go over $10,000 this year.
Crazy, self-hating, discriminating, bigoted, conservative huh? Maybe I should leave compassion in the 20th century too?
Quote from: Hikari on March 07, 2014, 04:39:51 PM
Hideyoshi, I respectfully suggest your argument is pointless. Just like in previous threads Nikko will say something controversial and provably false be it Rush Limbaugh having no views outside the mainstream, or Republicans have never compared Obama to Hitler; and then when you say something to rebuff this, she will make a broad attack on the left, dismiss what you say and continue more rhetoric. If you look at the previous threads you will see this is a pattern that repeats quite a few times. It isn't like someone with such strong and extreme positions is going to be swayed by anything anyway, so what is the purpose?
I will say Jamie D did, however make a point, one I vehemently disagree with and feel has little merit. That being said, it was a well articulated and reasonable point (no matter how much I disagree) and looked almost like an open invitation to have a meaningful debate. Perhaps it is a bit naive to think that a political debate on the internet, especially in a community that the vast majority of which supports ENDA, could have any meaningful outcome, but I have to give kudos to Jamie D for attempting to do this in good faith, and actually address the argument rather than just resorting to name calling as so many on both sides invariably do.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Genius!
Quote from: Nikko on March 07, 2014, 06:30:36 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Genius!
That's kind of funny. Did you not read the rest of her comment?
It was proclaiming the inanity of arguing with the weathered stump that is the relentless conservative vigilance.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 07, 2014, 06:15:31 PM
I have found ad hominem attacks don't accomplish much. Tekla and Julie Marie were about as far left, politically, as any people on this board. True believers. They had a difficult time defending the 0bama legacy.
I doubt they are really all that left. I didn't remember seeing much talk of nationalization of all industry, abolition of property, elimination of class thru the power of the state, etc. If anything calling someone a True Believer in that context is in it's own way an ad hominem attack, especially since it is so vague the reader is left to assume just what is exactly is they believe in. It is about as useful as running around telling people that they must have "drunk the koolaid" because they don't believe the same as you.
And what is with the zero-bama spelling? Are we back to the days of Bu$h? What is the point in a misspelling that I can only assume is intentional as it is so consistent.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 07, 2014, 06:15:31 PM
I tend to put my principles into action through my works. I don't depend on the nanny state. By way of example, for the fourth year I will be participating in "Take Steps, Be Heard" - the fundraiser for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, to help find effective treatments and cures for this group of conditions. I hope to go over $10,000 this year.
Well, good for you. The state is exactly what I support with my tax dollars, and I want it to protect the social welfare and social justice of all of us, especially the less fortunate. You aren't supposed to depend on it unless you need to, ideally we all work according to ability and all are cared for according to need ;) So I guess I put my principles into action every week with my paycheck and when I file my taxes next week, I am going to be putting my principles into action until I can pay the IRS off.
Quote from: Hikari on March 07, 2014, 11:06:35 PM
I doubt they are really all that left. I didn't remember seeing much talk of nationalization of all industry, abolition of property, elimination of class thru the power of the state, etc. If anything calling someone a True Believer in that context is in it's own way an ad hominem attack, especially since it is so vague the reader is left to assume just what is exactly is they believe in. It is about as useful as running around telling people that they must have "drunk the koolaid" because they don't believe the same as you.
And what is with the zero-bama spelling? Are we back to the days of Bu$h? What is the point in a misspelling that I can only assume is intentional as it is so consistent.
Well, good for you. The state is exactly what I support with my tax dollars, and I want it to protect the social welfare and social justice of all of us, especially the less fortunate. You aren't supposed to depend on it unless you need to, ideally we all work according to ability and all are cared for according to need ;) So I guess I put my principles into action every week with my paycheck and when I file my taxes next week, I am going to be putting my principles into action until I can pay the IRS off.
I suppose you would have had multiple interactions with each of them to understand the context of "true believer." As I recall, Tekla proudly wore the badge of an unapologetic socialist. She's not here anymore to clarify, so I will simply let her 18,000+ posts speak for her.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx, 1875, "Critique of the Gotha Program"
"Koolaid drinking" refers to mindless devotion to flawed leadership. It harkens back to the Jonestown tragedy.
It seems though, that "social justice" isn't one of the enumerated purposes in the US Constitution, which defines the limited role of the Federal government.
You are right about one thing, 0bama is unnecessarily long. "0" should suffice. ;)
Quote from: Jamie D on March 08, 2014, 12:32:43 AM
I suppose you would have had multiple interactions with each of them to understand the context of "true believer." As I recall, Tekla proudly wore the badge of an unapologetic socialist. She's not here anymore to clarify, so I will simply let her 18,000+ posts speak for her.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
- Karl Marx, 1875, "Critique of the Gotha Program"
"Koolaid drinking" refers to mindless devotion to flawed leadership. It harkens back to the Jonestown tragedy.
It seems though, that "social justice" isn't one of the enumerated purposes in the US Constitution, which defines the limited role of the Federal government.
You are right about one thing, 0bama is unnecessarily long. "0" should suffice. ;)
If what you mean by socialist is someone who wants to protect the environment, feed the hungry, regulate businesses so they don't create destructive monopolies, provide low cost or free public healthcare to each citizen, end senseless wars, expand education, and eliminate religion's grasp on the country, I guess I'm a socialist.
Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 08, 2014, 06:05:14 AM
If what you mean by socialist is someone who wants to protect the environment, feed the hungry, regulate businesses so they don't create destructive monopolies, provide low cost or free public healthcare to each citizen, end senseless wars, expand education, and eliminate religion's grasp on the country, I guess I'm a socialist.
By "socialist" I mean someone who adheres to this philosophy, as did Tekla:
Socialism is an economic concept that advocates public ownership of all resources. The production and distribution of resources with a society are then controlled by members of that society collectively or by the government that represents that society. Goods are produced and distributed based on need rather than on market forces such as profitability, price and consumers' purchasing power. In a socialist economy, workers contribute to society based on their ability and receive according to their needs, rather than being paid wages and using that money to purchase what they want. Private possessions are limited to personal-use items such as clothes, and there is no need or ability for individuals to accumulate wealth, so there is equality among the people.
That is a very narrow definition of socialism that doesn't at all meet up with real world practice... Few would have called Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia anything but Socialist but, it doesn't meet that definition. In real world usage socialism means 'using government power in an attempt to mitigate the power of class'. Your definition totally leaves out all forms of market socialism, and indeed the vast majority of parties that identify with socialism.
When Senator Sanders uses the word Socialism, and the CPUSA uses the word Socialism, they almost always refer to different things.
The truth is the vast majority of people who identify as Socialist are much closer to the socialism of the European Democratic Socialists, than the CPUSA's Socialism as a stepping stone to communism and absolute classlessness. I should know, as someone who has ran quite a few socialist groups during the time when I was a member of the CPUSA I was dreadfully disappointed in the fact that majority of those who would come to these groups were people who wanted a Swedish or Finnish model of things not a Cuban or Yugoslavian one.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 08, 2014, 12:59:50 PM
By "socialist" I mean someone who adheres to this philosophy, as did Tekla:
Socialism is an economic concept that advocates public ownership of all resources. The production and distribution of resources with a society are then controlled by members of that society collectively or by the government that represents that society. Goods are produced and distributed based on need rather than on market forces such as profitability, price and consumers' purchasing power. In a socialist economy, workers contribute to society based on their ability and receive according to their needs, rather than being paid wages and using that money to purchase what they want. Private possessions are limited to personal-use items such as clothes, and there is no need or ability for individuals to accumulate wealth, so there is equality among the people.
I'm befuddled by the frequent suggestions that Obama is a socialist. I assumed that people making said claim were operating with a radically different definition of socialism than I do. Now I'm even more confused. I see Obama as moderate-right. :-\
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on March 08, 2014, 05:29:04 PM
I'm befuddled by the frequent suggestions that Obama is a socialist. I assumed that people making said claim were operating with a radically different definition of socialism than I do. Now I'm even more confused. I see Obama as moderate-right. :-\
I suggest you read "Dreams from my Father."
The change will be even more profound when we Canada and the USA become one -which is coming sooner than you think-
Yeah, by then we will be close to Swedish model...
The coming change is unstoppable and irreversible....
Quote from: peky on March 08, 2014, 05:43:12 PM
The change will be even more profound when we Canada and the USA become one -which is coming sooner than you think-
Yeah, by then we will be close to Swedish model...
The coming change is unstoppable and irreversible....
Canada was invited to join the United States in the 1780's. They declined then, and would likely decline now.
Peky, thank you for the humor.
Quote from: Hikari on March 06, 2014, 08:07:07 AM
Was this Necromancy necessary?
I understand the logical injunctions against thread necromancy, but in almost every case I've come across, the information is useful and not redundant. We aren't reviving threads about how to make international characters or why aol discs were a waste of postage. Usually when someone revives a thread it's because they legitimately want more information on a specific topic.
I will admit to having gotten vital information from the results of old thread necromancy, often on topics so obscure that it provides the most valid and current info I can find.
Also, I would like to point out that I do depend on the "nanny state." Without it I could make my own way in the world easily but my daughter would be thrown under the bus. I need the government and I need handouts or this perfectly honest and human child would go without food or education. I was a republican until I became a single poor caregiver of a disabled person. Even back when I worked two and three jobs I needed government assistance to keep her out of lockup. No amount of pride or awareness of public identity is going to keep me from doing what it takes to feed her and keep her safe.
Quote from: Felix on March 09, 2014, 08:45:30 AM
I understand the logical injunctions against thread necromancy, but in almost every case I've come across, the information is useful and not redundant. We aren't reviving threads about how to make international characters or why aol discs were a waste of postage. Usually when someone revives a thread it's because they legitimately want more information on a specific topic.
I will admit to having gotten vital information from the results of old thread necromancy, often on topics so obscure that it provides the most valid and current info I can find.
Also, I would like to point out that I do depend on the "nanny state." Without it I could make my own way in the world easily but my daughter would be thrown under the bus. I need the government and I need handouts or this perfectly honest and human child would go without food or education. I was a republican until I became a single poor caregiver of a disabled person. Even back when I worked two and three jobs I needed government assistance to keep her out of lockup. No amount of pride or awareness of public identity is going to keep me from doing what it takes to feed her and keep her safe.
it's amazing how people can change their view on things when actually confronted with adversity
It seems that the conservative mindset is of callousness and apathy. BUT, once something affects a conservative, and they actually see how people live in dire situations, most change their way of thinking. It's called empathy, and it's a great thing.
Slave to the State :(
Quote from: Jamie D on March 08, 2014, 06:12:27 PM
Canada was invited to join the United States in the 1780's. They declined then, and would likely decline now.
Peky, thank you for the humor.
Have you read "Merger of the Century" by Diane Francis, my funny friend ?
Quote from: peky on March 09, 2014, 02:40:32 PM
Have you read "Merger of the Century" by Diane Francis, my funny friend ?
Why the Canadian would want to take on 17+ trillion dollars in debt is beyond me.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 09, 2014, 02:35:00 PM
Slave to the State :(
This is a democratic republic, we the people
are the state. I have faith in Democracy, and as cynical as I am about it when it comes down to it
I have faith in the United States of America, and by that I don't mean some slave owning old men who went to war over a laughable tax increase whilst shouting "no taxation without representation" just to later own do the same to their own citizens, I mean the America of today, I mean the democratic process, I mean the path that I think will inevitably lead us down the path to remove that upper class who for so long as taken so much from us, while doing nothing for society themselves but throwing crumbs at charities, that wouldn't be needed in the first place if not for their existence.
I am a slave to no one, I willingly participate in society.
Quote from: Felix on March 09, 2014, 08:45:30 AM
I understand the logical injunctions against thread necromancy, but in almost every case I've come across, the information is useful and not redundant. We aren't reviving threads about how to make international characters or why aol discs were a waste of postage. Usually when someone revives a thread it's because they legitimately want more information on a specific topic.
I will admit to having gotten vital information from the results of old thread necromancy, often on topics so obscure that it provides the most valid and current info I can find.
Also, I would like to point out that I do depend on the "nanny state." Without it I could make my own way in the world easily but my daughter would be thrown under the bus. I need the government and I need handouts or this perfectly honest and human child would go without food or education. I was a republican until I became a single poor caregiver of a disabled person. Even back when I worked two and three jobs I needed government assistance to keep her out of lockup. No amount of pride or awareness of public identity is going to keep me from doing what it takes to feed her and keep her safe.
I don't believe there are many people that would be against someone in your position receiving help.
But what most people mean by the term "nanny state" is the state taking over things we could and should do for ourselves, things we want to do for ourselves. Many people believe the "nanny state" threatens our ability to care for those truly in need and I think we've reached that point. We've reached a debt level that threatens everyone. Both parties have been responsible for the debt, it's time to deal with it. We have millions of able bodied Americans scamming the system, they're taking advantage of people's compassion and putting people truly in need at risk.
Nanny State = "House Pets of Government"
Incidentally, that's the name of my old band :P
Quote from: m7♭5 on March 10, 2014, 08:46:07 AM
Nanny State = "House Pets of Government"
Incidentally, that's the name of my old band :P
You write songs about the horrors of big government? If so, I'll buy your album when it comes out. ;)
Quote from: Nikko on March 10, 2014, 03:00:21 PM
You write songs about the horrors of big government? If so, I'll buy your album when it comes out. ;)
Mostly, I write songs about self-deception, misplaced trust, and hubris.