As usual, you take an obvious argument and manage to fail at making. Good job.
Printable View
As usual, you take an obvious argument and manage to fail at making. Good job.
So, you can't answer why the GOP had such massive failure using polls, or making predictions. Good to know. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Wishful thinking, and not believing science over guts. Have you read loki's posts recently by the way? I'm pretty sure he already answered your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Unwillingness to adopt new technology (one of your own specialties!) != across-the-board group think.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Depressing but hardly mainstream conservative though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Where is the denunciation of these tactics by mainstream Republicans?
E - War on Christmas is a cultural debate - not one that has a lot of political legislation on. As for 10 commandments primarily its been about not removing them. Which is a bit different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
F - The Republican party doesn't want to legalize those violating the sanctity of our border. And it sure as hell doesn't want to provide amnesty for folks who will end up voting Democrat either. The focus should be about what happens when more illegals come over. Pushes the cost of unskilled labor down (which is actually a good thing but hey your the guy who wants the party to bends to popular concepts), increases the strain on social services and makes it easier for cartels/terrorists to cross the border.
G - OK - so patent protection, IP protection are non-science issues? As for ID - what of it? Its taught as a theory that a good chunk of the populace agrees with! Its taught right next to other theories like evolution. If a teacher taught ID as "fact" then there would be an issue. In reality though this another retarded symbolic debate. Kids don't even pay attention to class anyway. As far as electoral strategies I don't think that's true.
H - The UN is awful. Most people also believe it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116347/united-nations.aspx Why the hell wouldn't Republicans go after it? Foreign aid is another issue that most Americans think we give too much of (and have an absurd idea of how much we actually give) but nonetheless why should the GOP change its stance on this? Its basic populism - which hardly ever impacts legislation.
I - History did NOT start in 1970. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ury_chart.html I'm talking about global macro trends over the last 300 years. The demand for more government spending has fueled more and more taxation over the long run. In a 100 years (barring some crazy events like nuke wars or unheard of innovations that drastically change the ways of things) government spending will be higher then it is now in terms of GDP. Do you think differently?
J - Take a stand against tea party extremists? There are crazies in every party (look at the loony left screaming no blood for oil and wearing shirts with terrorists on them). But for the most part the tea party has been very restrained. They clean up after themselves. They don't dissolve into riots. They don't clash with police. Compare it to leftist groups protesting WTO or riots in LA. I think your view may be skewed by media efforts like this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAUsEZgsgko
Why the hell would the GOP point out what some of their crazy member's are doing. Outside of the ground zero Mosque debate none of these other ones made the national news in any prominent way. That doesn't make sense. Its like Obama coming out about how he doesn't support violence because some union thug beat someone up. Even though that story never made the national news. Its counter productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Weren't you saying before how Muslims should denounce the behavior of Muslim extremists? :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Actions of Muslim extremists make the national news. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And these things make Muslim news. Why piss off 1% of the electorate?
Back to square one - its not common. Its only the really crazies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
By failing to denounce them, you prove otherwise. 85% of Muslims voted for Obama, despite generally being socially conservative and not being fans of his foreign policy.
Tbh, kinda not. But even if they were, how well do you think that part of your system is working?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
See the problem is that it isn't a theory and pretending/insisting that it is affirms the anti-science image of the party. Meanwhile, "evolution" is about as close to "fact" as you can get in "science". <do you think scientists may perhaps be interested in not giving power to a party that is anti-science?Quote:
As for ID - what of it? Its taught as a theory that a good chunk of the populace agrees with! Its taught right next to other theories like evolution. If a teacher taught ID as "fact" then there would be an issue. In reality though this another retarded symbolic debate. Kids don't even pay attention to class anyway. As far as electoral strategies I don't think that's true.
E. You can try to spin things as much as you like, but when people turn on their TV or tune into their radio, they hear Republican pundits and politicians blasting away at secularism. What's the point? It's not going to get any more Evangelicals to vote Republican, but it will keep secular conservatives from voting Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
F. The last major amnesty was passed by the Paragon of Virtue himself, Ronald Reagan. Breaking the law is bad. Refusing to acknowledge reality is worse.
G. That's your problem. Science isn't judged by what "chunk of the population agrees with" it. Neither does science have a theory vs. fact dichotomy that you mention. The key distinction for scientists is between science and pseudo-science. By equating the two, you're turning a vast majority of scientists against the GOP (even those who don't give a damn about evolution). One, it shows that the GOP has a profound lack of understanding of what science is. And two, it shows a willingness by the GOP to compromise values like dedication to truth for the sake of getting the crazy vote. Rather odd when you're not willing to sacrifice your principles to help the weak, but are more than happy to do it to get more votes from the insane.
H. For most Americans, neither the UN nor foreign aid are issues of importance (a vast majority of Americans also don't have any idea how much we spend on either, and tend to overestimate both by several levels of magnitude). Any time the GOP blasts away at the two, it makes enemies in the policy community (and friends in the militia circles I suppose, if those are the votes you'd prefer). As a result, most of the top analysts want nothing to do with the GOP, which reinforces the idiotic foreign policy preached by many Republican politicians.
I. It's a rather odd trend when it's been broken for the last four decades. Or perhaps government revenue increased to pay for the creation of a welfare state, but has largely stayed the same since that took place in the 1930s to 1960s.
J. The difference being that the Tea Party extremists are dictating the debate in GOP circles, and even moderate Republicans have to make statements of support for the Tea Party (which inevitably backfire in the general election). I don't recall the Democratic leadership coming out in favor of WTO protests.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tial-race/?hpw
Interesting that for all the talk about polls being systematically biased against Romney, they were actually mostly wrong in the opposite direction. :noob:
GGT Romney writing his concession speech at the last minute means absolutely nothing. Concession speeches are always written after the polls close, even if the underdog realises he has little real chance can you imagine if his speech leaked?
No, ID is not taught in public schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Since Kitzmiller v Dover showed ID for the creationism it is, back in 2005.
It wasn't taught to me, and thus far my kids haven't had it forced on them. You can't very well teach the scientific method then turn around and teach something like ID.
There is absolutely zero scientific evidencebehind ID. It is religion and should be left to the chapel, it has no role in a science class.
That's just a matter of opinion. Can't keep good men downQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Okay, now that I've gotten most of the smug glee out of my system (most, not all), I think I'm now qualified to participate in serious discussions again. I find this introspection interesting! Anyhoo,Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
(bearing in mind my perspective is radically different from yours, so try to argue in good faith?) especially given E, G, H and J, wouldn't it honestly be easier for you to join the Blue Dog dems? The really libby-lib people vote Green or some other retarded never-gonna-happen-nationally-party anyway, you can hold your nose that much can't you?
To me it seems that just as the Pubbies keep lurching right-ward with the Teapers driving the clown car, the Dems have also shifted right-ward. Sure, on social issues the nation is changing as old white guys are dying out, but are the Dems really that repugnant to you fiscally (which I've assumed is your main political interest)? Saying, without qualifiers and sources, that Obummer is to the right of Saint Reagan is, of course, hyperbole and a little bit silly, but surely you don't see him as the socialist communist Bill and Sean paint him? I'm afraid I'm not that up to speed on your two houses of representatives and what each representative is doing, I can guess Pelosi makes you gag but outside of that I'm fairly clueless, but is Michele Bachmann really preferable to a Blue Dog dem?
The field isn't clear yet, of course, but it doesn't look like that much introspection has been happening on the national stage. Can't know what's going on behind closed doors, but right now it certainly isn't clear that the Teapers won't be leading the narrative. There's already been the predictable noises about Mittens being too moderate. 2014 will further shape the situation, and if it's a repeat of 2010 the Teapers will seem vindicated, and the GOP will go further down the path of frothing insanity. You're more on the inside than I am, perhaps you have a clearer view of the situation in the field, but from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem at all impossible that the crazy will win.
Another issue I've been thinking and reading about, and again please remember that I'm looking at this from the outside and through my crazy socialist lenses, is the relationship between Fox and friends and the party itself. Given how flabbergasted not only the voters but the insiders were at Mittens' loss, it appears that some people have bought their own propaganda. Again, it's possible Rove is a shrewd businessman who punked a bunch of billionaires, but his implosion on Fox could have been genuine. In all seriousness, you've dismissed these ideas before when I've voiced them in a less serious tone, Fox and the associated local talk radio hosts etc. manufacture an alternate reality where a lot of the GOP base lives. Anecdotes aren't evidence, but I've read so many people whose friends and families literally have that message poured onto them for nearly their entire waking life. Radio during the commute, Fox or radio on at the office, Fox on at home until they fall asleep. Does the GOP control the message, or does the message control the GOP? Or at least influence it.
You opined elsewhere that Maddow is on the level of Sean and Bill, and of course she is very openly partisan (she might be more justified on Comedy Central?), but MSNBC has talking heads that disagree with a lot of her message. I'm not saying it isn't possible for a libby-lib to create a similar libby-lib alternate reality bubble around them, with the Internet available anyone can find anti-Freep boards, but I think we can both agree that the US "left" is far more divided and incoherent about their message than Fox & Friends?
Again, you find my perspective bizarre if not diseased, but it doesn't seem impossible to me that the Party is going to run on the same path it's begun, and at some point they're gonna leave you behind.
The easy answer is no, because Blue Dog Democrats are extinct. They were mostly elected to marginal seats, and got voted out in 2010. Even at the ideological level, the DNC has long abandoned centrism and the Bill Clinton wing of the party. It's not a coincidence that the last 2 Democratic candidates for the presidency were ranked as being more left wing than all but a handful of Democratic senators. The way I see it, the country as a whole is becoming more socially liberal, but it's not becoming any more economically/fiscally conservative. The GOP will face strong pressure to move to the center on social issues over the next few election cycles, while the DNC will not become any more moderate economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Now If I lived in the South, where the average Republican politician is bat-shit insane, I'd probably feel more compelled to vote Democrat. On the East Coast and to a lesser degree here in Illinois, it's the Republicans who are the moderates (and unfortunately, they keep on losing elections to far left wingers).
There are an equal amount of Republicans who believe the opposite. We'll see which of the two dominates in 2014. We'll also see where I'm residing in 2014.Quote:
The field isn't clear yet, of course, but it doesn't look like that much introspection has been happening on the national stage. Can't know what's going on behind closed doors, but right now it certainly isn't clear that the Teapers won't be leading the narrative. There's already been the predictable noises about Mittens being too moderate. 2014 will further shape the situation, and if it's a repeat of 2010 the Teapers will seem vindicated, and the GOP will go further down the path of frothing insanity. You're more on the inside than I am, perhaps you have a clearer view of the situation in the field, but from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem at all impossible that the crazy will win.
Fox, like MSNBC, preaches to the converted. The people who care most about those channels are people who are already fanatics and have no intention of seeing moderation. I can accept that Fox and right-wing radio makes the fringe crazier, but I don't think it has much of an effect on your average Republican.Quote:
Another issue I've been thinking and reading about, and again please remember that I'm looking at this from the outside and through my crazy socialist lenses, is the relationship between Fox and friends and the party itself. Given how flabbergasted not only the voters but the insiders were at Mittens' loss, it appears that some people have bought their own propaganda. Again, it's possible Rove is a shrewd businessman who punked a bunch of billionaires, but his implosion on Fox could have been genuine. In all seriousness, you've dismissed these ideas before when I've voiced them in a less serious tone, Fox and the associated local talk radio hosts etc. manufacture an alternate reality where a lot of the GOP base lives. Anecdotes aren't evidence, but I've read so many people whose friends and families literally have that message poured onto them for nearly their entire waking life. Radio during the commute, Fox or radio on at the office, Fox on at home until they fall asleep. Does the GOP control the message, or does the message control the GOP? Or at least influence it.
Fox regularly invites left-wingers to its shows. They're usually there to act as strawman, as is the case for right-wingers on MSNBC (with a few exceptions).Quote:
You opined elsewhere that Maddow is on the level of Sean and Bill, and of course she is very openly partisan (she might be more justified on Comedy Central?), but MSNBC has talking heads that disagree with a lot of her message. I'm not saying it isn't possible for a libby-lib to create a similar libby-lib alternate reality bubble around them, with the Internet available anyone can find anti-Freep boards, but I think we can both agree that the US "left" is far more divided and incoherent about their message than Fox & Friends?
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I can't really argument against you on the blue dog issue since, as I said, I'm largely ignorant of the situation on the ground. I guess what I'd like to contest is the idea that it's the fringe that's mostly influenced by Fox & Friends, just like the libbyest of libs go Green or whatever the most fringe potential Pubbie voters are the Paultards and out-right libertarians. But Fox's message hits the Pubbie base hardest, the people you more or less have to get out on election day; my impression was that this is what went 'wrong' in 2010 that the nut-job Pubbie base went out and voted while the libby-libs smoked weed at home and the sensible Pubbie voters were outgunned. Now, all the rapey rape guys lost their races this time around, but they lost to Dems, so
Inside the Dems you could at least try and influence the process (their messaging is more incoherent and the 'left' is divisive and stupid), inside the Pubs you're a voice in the wilderness, destined to be a RINO at best, communist traitor at worst. The rapey rape guys didn't win the general race, but they did enamor the base. This tells us that the base loves rapey rape guys, right? Santorum did okay in some primaries, and conversely Christie got his ass chewed out (no mean feat) after he told Fox to fuck off. As you say, 2014 will tell, but it looks like the crazies control the narrative. *shrug*
Anyway, as I said, it was very interesting to see your honest and fairly in-depth introspection of the Pubsters, and it's appreciated :)
I think Tea Party had a lot of non-committed members who only supported it because of how bad the economy was doing. The situation should improve by 2014, and "crazy" will become less attractive to mainstream voters. Proportionally speaking, the crazy are more likely to vote in primaries, so that will always be a problem. No way to tell whether their influence will remain at the current level in 2014.
Regarding influence: it depends on what level. At the local and state level, there's no problem for moderate Republicans in parts of the country (much of the east coast above southern Virginia and parts of the midwest). At the national level, you're probably right (at least for now). I'm not convinced it's possible to reverse the left-wing move of the DNC at either the local or national level. The Clinton era was a blip on the radar. The party is pro-union, pro-high taxes, pro-economic demagoguery, and anti-free trade. I don't see that changing.
Are the Democrats in the south similarly moderate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Fair enough; we have such different ideas of 'sensible' that I don't think I can properly place myself in your shoes. But we tried!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not really (well, they are more "moderate" on social issues, but that's not the kind of moderation I like), but the Republican politicians in the South are nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
http://theweek.com/article/index/211...c-high-schoolsQuote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Who makes the determination? Tread carefully because your answer should be consistent with the previous 200 years and a willingness for the answer to be the same in the next 200 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade