|
On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote:
In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy.
Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
|
On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote:
In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy. Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts. Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position. How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans. The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Your argument is completely false. There was an article not too long ago in the NY Times that clearly showed that a majority of Americans support a good majority of the policies the Democrats support, but somehow still do not all vote for the Democrats. I will try to find the article but if you're going to claim that most Americans reject "what the Democrats are selling", the LEAST you can do is mention NUMBERS.
edit: I just found the article, you can read it here. Let me just quote two sentences from it, utterly destroying your argument in the process:
Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don’t trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.
There. You were wrong. Again.
|
It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/
I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
Either way, we'll find out if the Republican's aggressive, obstructing and downright childish conduct over the last presidential term is going to get rewarded, or punished, in the coming election. I know which outcome I'm hoping for.
|
On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote:It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election.
The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them.
Again, why do you think democrats had trouble passing legislation during this time? Simple: their own, more moderate members opposed much of their own parties agenda and understood that they would be voted out of office if they went along with it blindly. It turns out that the more moderate democrats were exactly right, and most of them were voted out of office in 2010 after they voted for Obamacare.
|
On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote:
In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy. Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts.
It's called a filibuster. You need 60 votes in the senate in order to end debate on a bill and move onto a vote. That means that any party with 41 senators can, if they vote in a block (as republicans do), block any piece of legislation that goes through the senate (aside from certain spending/budget measures which can pass without super-majority approval). Historically, this has been used rarely. Since 2008, it's been par for the course. There were plenty of democratic votes to pass a bill with a public option. It was just procedurally impossible due to the senate's cloture rules.
Also, I'm not a democrat, so please don't call it "my party."
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
I'm not even sure where to begin here. The reason Republicans can get away with holding the global economy hostage is two-fold: 1) The average voter understand virtually nothing about the debt ceiling or what it would mean if it were not extended, and 2) Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are absolutely terrible at messaging. If for some reason you can't see it in the debt ceiling debate, look back to the 9/11 first responder aid bill that they tried to get passed in December last year. Providing healthcare for 9/11 first responders who got sick due to their service is probably the most popular idea in history. Republicans held it up in order to secure the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%. Any half decent politician could make them pay for that stance, but the Democrats failed to.
In polls, Americans consistently choose increased taxes (especially for the wealthy) over any spending cuts. You should also know that most deficit problems have nothing to do with the kind of cuts proposed. In the last decade, Clinton's surpluses were turned into massive deficits thanks to a few factors: the Bush tax cuts, military spending related to Iraq/Afghanistan, other increases in military spending, Medicare part D, TARP/stimulus, and extension of unemployment benefits. In short, that's tax cuts, war, prescription drugs for old people, and rescuing the economy.
It’s true, your explanation is simpler. It also happens to be almost completely divorced from reality. Polls showed that Americans preferred compromise over principle. They showed that, in places where people wanted deficit reduction at all, they greatly preferred tax increases (especially on wealthy people and corporations) over spending cuts and especially entitlement reform.
Republicans framed the entire debate. Democrats are so bad a messaging that they just went along with it. The entire conversation took place on conservative territory.
How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans.
I actually don’t know the poll number on this, and it’s not really worth the effort to find enough polls to get a representative sample. It might be true that Americans like Gitmo and prefer military trials for detainees. I really don’t know.
Though it’s worth noting, that this is an example of an area where Obama campaigned on a liberal position but enacted it to a conservative policy, which really works towards my earlier point…
The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
B definitely happens, but I think for a different reason.
I’m curious what you mean when you say Democrats “mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare.” The bill looks nothing like what liberal members of the party wanted. If the healthcare bill is your prime example of passing a liberal conspiracy on the American people, you’re case is pretty flimsy.
|
On September 09 2011 03:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote:It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election. The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them. Again, why do you think democrats had trouble passing legislation during this time? Simple: their own, more moderate members opposed much of their own parties agenda and understood that they would be voted out of office if they went along with it blindly. It turns out that the more moderate democrats were exactly right, and most of them were voted out of office in 2010 after they voted for Obamacare.
Kennedy died in August of 2009, and took the 60 vote super-majority with him. You're so far off base it's not even funny.
Also you're counting Lieberman as a Democrat, which is usually a mistake.
|
On September 09 2011 03:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote:It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election. The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them.
Again, false. Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's senate seat in February 2010, which meant that the Democrats (+ independents) no longer had 60 seats.
|
On September 09 2011 03:53 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 09 2011 03:33 Bibdy wrote:It's hardly ridiculous. The Republicans are just on their full-on offensive to ensure Obama doesn't get a second term. They simply used a run-of-the-mill event like a debt-ceiling raise to invent a fake crisis and stall Democrat action in order to further spread their message of 'no more taxes', 'reduced spending' and yada yada. Now, during the primaries, they'll cite that event as the inability of this government to get anything done when the reality it has been the Republicans filibustering and stalling the Democrats at every turn. When they didn't have the votes, they filibustered. When they had the votes, they stalled. Time and time again over the last 3 years. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/I don't know whether to praise or chide the Democrats for not calling the Republicans out on this bullshit. I can only assume they expect that voters would consider such a thing as petty whining, practically guaranteeing they lose the next election. The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate from April 2009 until January 2011. They had 60 seats in the senate. The republicans couldn't filibuster anything without at least one democrat joining with them. Again, why do you think democrats had trouble passing legislation during this time? Simple: their own, more moderate members opposed much of their own parties agenda and understood that they would be voted out of office if they went along with it blindly. It turns out that the more moderate democrats were exactly right, and most of them were voted out of office in 2010 after they voted for Obamacare. Kennedy died in August of 2009, and took the 60 vote super-majority with him. You're so far off base it's not even funny. Also you're counting Lieberman as a Democrat, which is usually a mistake.
I'm trying to find the exact voting record from the senate vote on Obamacare in December 2009. Wikipedia lists it as 60 - 39, with all 39 republicans voting against it, 58 democrats voting for it, and two independents voting for it (Lieberman and Sanders). Clearly the republicans weren't able to filibuster it with just 39 votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Lierberman is a reliable democrat when it comes to most fiscal/domestic issues, which is why he caucuses with the democrats. He is fairly conservative on foreign policy.
|
Its a shame he waited until after his retirement to write this. It probably would have made no difference, but the whole thing did kinda read to me like somebody who had cashed all his chips and is only now telling you how the game is rigged.
I'm not a US citizen but I follow American politics quite closely, possibly more closely than my own countries partly because the impact America has on the world but also because it so often seems like a work of fiction. The future looks bleak.
|
If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
|
On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote:
If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black.
I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this.
It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem.
Human beings are not designed to be this rich.
OOohhhhh I'm mad right now...
|
On September 09 2011 04:46 Krowser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote:
If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black. I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this. It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem. Human beings are not designed to be this rich. OOohhhhh I'm mad right now...
Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
|
On September 09 2011 04:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:46 Krowser wrote:On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote:
If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black. I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this. It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem. Human beings are not designed to be this rich. OOohhhhh I'm mad right now... Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
Erm no. That has nothing to do with the basis of capitalism, which is that the means of production are privately owned and that an important part of the profit is re-invested in the company. There's nothing about capitalism that prevents being long-sighted about the universe around us, especially if changes in the universe can have a long-term negative impact on the economic environment.
|
On September 09 2011 04:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system.
That's not a capitalist system. That's a market failure system.
A proper capitalist system accounts for market externalities and ensures that competitiors pay the true costs of production. Otherwise, we don't have a competitive free market.
What we have in America today is far from a true capitalist system. No one can honestly argue that we have a free market when the largest corporations recieve some of the biggest subsidies while evading their tax responsibilities and funding political opposition to anything that might make them pay for the externalities they're exploiting.
|
It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American.
I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this.
|
On September 09 2011 05:03 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:On September 09 2011 04:46 Krowser wrote:On September 09 2011 04:17 Luzbeda wrote:
If you have studied mob mentality, how decent people get stirred up and commit violent acts or crimes, you can see this thought process at work in the Republican agenda.
It isn't only that Republican rhetoric is regurgitated by supporters so faithfully and without debate, Republicans' success in recent years has been playing on people's anger.
Republicans have learned it is easier to drum up support by playing on people's emotions, not their intelligence. It is much easier to get people mad at a black president than it is to appreciate the far-reaching social ramifications of a minority reaching the highest office in the free world.
Other topics could be discussed, but this is the only one that really matters to Republicans: Obama is black. I don't even live in the USA and I feel like throwing my monitor at the wall out of rage after reading this. It's the epitomy of shortsightedness, selfishness and general assholeism! The Republican plan works ONLY for Republicans, TODAY. What they are trying to do today will ensure they won't be able to pursue their current way of life in 50 years. But HEY! I don't give a fuck! I'll be dead by then and it WONT be my problem. Human beings are not designed to be this rich. OOohhhhh I'm mad right now... Err. You just described the entire basis of capitalism. People make decisions for their own self-benefit and ONLY their own. So yes, people who can pass on all the consequences to the next generation without repercussion will continue to do so in a capitalist system. Erm no. That has nothing to do with the basis of capitalism, which is that the means of production are privately owned and that an important part of the profit is re-invested in the company. There's nothing about capitalism that prevents being long-sighted about the universe around us, especially if changes in the universe can have a long-term negative impact on the economic environment.
But being long-sighted about the universe usually means you're lessening your profit cause most 'long-sighted' actions don't come for free and force certain expenses and/or cuts from you. That makes your business vulnerable to competitors who can expand faster, sell their products for less money, ...
This is not a question that can be answered by a clear black-and-white answer, since you're image or firm philosophy and your good deeds may win you customers and thereby profit. But true capitalistic logic is to decrease production costs and maximize profit by any means - if you don't do it someone else will.
|
On September 09 2011 05:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American.
I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this.
I don't think you guys will end up like us, but I could be wrong. A lot of the conservative stuff works purely off jingoism and fear. I am not sure you guys have as much of that. Here we have people who will hear Obama is a muslim, there thats the end of it. They won't actually look into that claim. They hear <X> is socialism and socialism is like totally what Stalin did and bam, that is fact to them. Bachman gets up and talks about all of Obama's unconstitutional actions, she doesn't have to say what they are or what was unconstitutional about it, they don't care.
People are getting way to into politics about this. This is more about "<X> is communist!", "its a baby killer!", "thats like what the nazi's did", and "death panels" thing that the right is doing at the moment and how it works. Doesn't matter what side of politics you are on, that isn't good for us as a country. Both the left and the right should be in agreement here. It isn't any better if someone on the left starts doing something similar. Both sides should be free of this, but they won't stop as long as it works.
|
On September 09 2011 05:27 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
It's times like these I'm really proud not to be an American.
I hope it's not just a matter of time until Australian politics become/are shown to already be as ridiculous as this. I don't think you guys will end up like us, but I could be wrong. A lot of the conservative stuff works purely off jingoism and fear. I am not sure you guys have as much of that. Here we have people who will hear Obama is a muslim, there thats the end of it. They won't actually look into that claim. They hear <X> is socialism and socialism is like totally what Stalin did and bam, that is fact to them. Bachman gets up and talks about all of Obama's unconstitutional actions, she doesn't have to say what they are or what was unconstitutional about it, they don't care. People are getting way to into politics about this. This is more about "<X> is communist!", "its a baby killer!", "thats like what the nazi's did", and "death panels" thing that the right is doing at the moment and how it works. Doesn't matter what side of politics you are on, that isn't good for us as a country. Both the left and the right should be in agreement here. It isn't any better if someone on the left starts doing something similar. Both sides should be free of this, but they won't stop as long as it works.
This kind of thing gets on my tits as well. Every crazy quote you just listed has been a part of Republican rhetoric for the last four years. I don't recall anything similar from the Democrats. I want someone to cite even half as many incidents of Democratic representatives calling the Republicans nazis either in this presidency or even under Bush's reign. I sure as shit can't find them. Where the hell was the Ben Gleck show where we got our worst fears pandered to while someone publicly called George Bush a racist, white-supremacist, religious nut job, poor-hating, warmonger, all in the name of a quick buck? It didn't happen.
The fear-mongering, volatile, hate machine is powered entirely by one side of the political spectrum right now, yet people think it permeates the entire process? You really have to admire the Republicans and how they drag common perception down to their level.
|
Democracy has been a failed experiment. I say it is time we move on from the silly notion that people are capable of determining and acting on what is in there own best interest in the long term. It is time for a merit based system of government, you want to rule? Prove you are the most capable. Popular opinion has never and will never bring the best results. All that happens is a large number of people argue and disagree and nothing meaningful happens until the 11th hour if ever and everyone loses.
|
On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:01 Omnipresent wrote:
In the end, Democrats usually end up passing more conservative bills than the public wants. They're absolutely terrible at messaging. You don't have to look any farther than the debt ceiling debate. They let the Republicans turn a routine procedural measure into a debate on short term debt (which most economists agree is a total non-issue).
It's crazy that you think democrats pretend to be conservative to get elected and then pass a wildly liberal agenda. As a member of the liberal "base," I assure you, we get pandered to during election season, and left out in the cold when it comes to enacting policy. Again, I'd argue that most Americans really don't want what the Democrats are selling, so the only bills that Democrats can pass are watered down versions of what they really want. Why do you think your party had so much trouble passing Obamacare? It wasn't because Republicans were obstructing them. The Republicans didn't have the votes. The Democrats couldn't get the more moderate members of their party to vote for the bill because they knew it meant the end of their political careers in their more moderate/conservative districts. Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position. How about Gitmo? Why do you think Obama backtracked on shutting it down? Why do you think that Eric Holder (at Obama's direction) has done an about-face on holding criminal trials for terrorists in federal courts? It's very simple: Obama understands that a majority of Americans want Gitmo to remain open and want terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. Obama understands that it is unwise politically to ignore the will of a majority of Americans simply to placate his liberal base that constitutes only approximately 20% of Americans. The bottom line is this: the leadership of the Democratic party, as it stands now, is generally too liberal for a majority of Americans. This is why Democrats a) mask their policies and their intentions, such as with Obamacare, and b) end up pissing off their liberal base by passing watered-down legislation or backtracking on campaign promises such as closing Gitmo. Again, this isn't a messaging issue.
Can republicans at the very least stop trying to paint their side of the political spectrum as somehow being the majority? The would-be democratic voters in this country are so disenfranchised due to gerrymandering, election day being on a Tuesday, population distributions between and within states, and the electoral college that if the system was actually changed a simple one person - one vote system, the entire political spectrum would have to move to the left in order to create a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans. The fact that the Senate gives such a hugely disproportionate amount of power to the Republican leaning small states should be terribly obvious to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
