US Politics Mega-thread - Page 437

On September 16 2013 06:31 KwarK wrote:
Eliminated through falling into obscurity due to nobody liking their policies obviously.

The issue you're seeming to have here is that you believe that for a system to be a democracy it must have the Republican party in its present incarnation in it and you must support it. I don't. I believe the Republican party must be allowed in a democracy, but wanting it not to be there and wanting it not to win and wanting it to respond to your lack of support by adapting is not anti-democratic.

On September 16 2013 06:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:


And calling people "insane" the way the Soviets did is a legitimate way to do that. As I'm sure you'll point out, we aren't putting people in psych wards for it so it's not the same! And it probably never will be.

But obviously, calling people racist, sexist, and insane is a legitimate way to destroy their credibility so you can win. Look at how accepted it is at TL where ad hominem and flame-baiting is clearly against the rules.

You're just parroting propaganda to further your dream of a one-party state. You aren't interested in democracy, you're interested in the never-ending rule of the non-conservative party. Why don't you stop with the indirect campaign and just admit it.

On September 16 2013 06:38 KwarK wrote:

Okay, just checking if I'm following.

Calling the Republican party insane makes you the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union was a one party state so that's where you made the connection?

On September 16 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:
Okay, we'll start again from scratch.

He called your party insane to which you responded


Please demonstrate why calling your party (or ideology) insane means that he wants a one party state (as opposed to many parties, none of which are the Republicans (like we have in the UK)) and why he isn't interested in democracy (such as when a party with an ideology perceived as insane reacts to public perception by changing its manifesto). I'm just not seeing how believing the party you disagree with is insane when they espouse a bunch of stuff that you find nonsensical means you hate democracy and want a one party state. But feel free to show your working.

On September 16 2013 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Do you believe that the person who made the insane comment was advocating the forceful confinement of political opponents to psychiatric hospitals on the grounds of insanity? Because I'd agree that if he was advocating that then that would be anti-democratic. But somehow I don't think that's what he meant.

On September 16 2013 06:52 Nyovne wrote:
Funtime's over.

On September 16 2013 06:51 Sermokala wrote:

you calling a party insane,raceist,ect is directly you trying to delegitimize the party and accomplice the goal that you state of wanting the party to die. In the case of america if the republican party dies then it becomes a one party state. The ideas that you are trying to delegitimize "because no one agrees with them anymore" is not going to have people not agree with it anymore when its the only organization that will represent them and listen to them. You're taking the stance that the other side is fundamentally wrong instead of attacking their ideas in this case. It isn't about debate then its just about partisan hating on each other and nothing good happens then. People rail on obama for being more conservative then he needs to when he needs to be partialy conservative to get elected in america, then rail on the conservatives for not having anything to clearly define themselves against.

You guys are clearly just egging DEB on at this point and you really arn't being fair to him.


That is what he ment. People talk about dog whistle raceism and then point to how clearly they want the final solution is the same as portraying your enemy as incoherent crazies that you want to forcefully commit to a psych ward. Trying to be silly about it and going well and beyond whats in front of you works both ways if your being reasonable.

On September 16 2013 06:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The problem with the Republican party right now is that it's too reliant on and dominated by ignorant southern votes.


Unless that changes a lot of the good ideas the party is built on will continue to get watered down and misapplied.

On September 16 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:

You really think that the Republicans wouldn't change their ideology in the face of the public perception that their policies were nonsensical, absurd and detached from reality? Or that if they disappeared the result would be a one party state forever with no more political struggles?

If the population disagreed with the ideology espoused by the Republicans, like they do in my country, you wouldn't need a Republican party to espouse them. Democracy doesn't need the existence and support of every party imaginable, it needs parties to represent the people. If the people cease to support the Republican party and the Republican party does not adapt to espouse something the people do support then it serves no democratic purpose. That doesn't mean it should be outlawed but it'll die on its own and democracy, along with struggles between rival ideologies, will continue perfectly happily without it.

The system we use is basically where we ignore all the stuff we agree on, such as the existence of public healthcare in my country or, to use a basic example, the existence of a nuclear deterrent in yours, and instead argue over all the other stuff. There does not need to be a huge public debate between the nuclear disarmament party and the others in your country for it to be democratic because it is not an issue the people are divided on, there only needs to be the possibility for that debate to happen should the people care.
What people are saying here is that they feel the ideology being represented by the Republican party is so out of date, detached from reality and often times absurd that they would like to see a time when those beliefs have no public support. Where the Republican party has either dropped them as vote losers or has stood by them and become a political fossil of an extinct animal while a newer party argues about the shit people are actually divided on. That is how democracy works, it is a constantly evolving process with a feedback loop from the people to the parties. Opposing an ideology is the lifeblood of a democracy, political feedback from the people to the parties is how the policies with democratic legitimacy are found and how the parties adapt to shifting currents in public opinion.

On September 16 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:
The Democratic ideology is not a solid bloc, a hypothetical victory of the Democrats over the Republican ideology would not create a new era of single party rule. There would be an end to the debates no longer required because there was no significant public divide on the issue but there would be new arguments instantly. To someone who believes that blacks should be slaves and votes solely on that issue the current political reality seems a lot like one party rule but that doesn't make it so.

On September 16 2013 07:08 Sermokala wrote:

The problem with the Republican party is that it tries to represent a block of voters that is harshly separate to a growing majority of the country. Racism works because there isn't a lot of white people inside the cities and there is almost no black people a few miles out of them. Northern white people don't understand raceism at all and get confused when its brought up all the time like its a main societal problem for them. that confusion leads to ignorance that either leads them to default to "I don't want to be a raceist" or "why do people complain about problems that don't effect me in my white persons area". Its a fundamental demographic problem that will haunt them constantly. They can't appeal to reverse raceist people (forgive the term but you understand what I mean) when those people are already advocating for democrats white forgoing and confusing their base more disenfranchising it then anything else. With minorities auto voteing democrat as much as they are (you can't really expect any sort of black vote so why bother campaign for it paradox) there really isn't anything for republicans do to other then double down on the one block that is open for them (white straight christian males) which will only hurt them in the end (beacuse thats offensive to non white lbgt supporting non christian females and female supporters).

I'm all ears for some idea on how republicans can turn it around but I really don't see where everyone gets this absurdness about what they should be doing.


The problem is that still a large block of the country does support republican policies. Obama won by less then a percent of the nations population in by what was a guaranteed electoral victory. wanting that swath of views that comprise the republican party is the same attitude that republicans have when they want to disenfranchise the minority voters that confound their attempts to get elected. Opposing an ideology is the lifeblood of a democracy but wishing that oppression ill is the antithesis of opposing it.



Imagine the country back a few decades when the republicans were winning 49 states and it wasn't that big of a deal anymore. It didn't result in the death of the democratic party it just had to rediscover what was strong for it and what it could use to win. Fundamentally the republican party isn't strong right now but that says nothing about the long term prospects for the party. The parties in america are a lot closer then what I think is the image right now.

Opposing an ideology is the lifeblood of a democracy but wishing that oppression ill is the antithesis of opposing it.

On September 16 2013 07:19 Sermokala wrote:

I'm entirely curious about this but this is a serious question. Did this situation already happen when thatcher came to power in the UK?