EPTIt just shows how good the propaganda and messaging is from the Republicans/Neo-cons to have people actually believe that crap.
GOP staffer quits, writes tell-all - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
It just shows how good the propaganda and messaging is from the Republicans/Neo-cons to have people actually believe that crap. | ||
|
TurpinOS
Canada1223 Posts
On September 08 2011 07:37 Arrian wrote: No matter how what's going on in Washington is framed, I think the basic results speak for themselves, and that's essentially that the Democrats have done squat to create jobs, though they have created an overabundance of debt, and we're even worse off than we were when Bush was in office, which I basically didn't think was possible, so congratualtions Mr. Obama, for doing the impossible: we are worse off than we were under Bush. Definately the best post in the topic, I heard the same thing on Fox News the other day. ... I don't understand how you can make such a bland statement. Obama doesnt rule the world's economy as far as I know, he can't make it all better by just moving his wand. This thread sure delivers, I dont understand how anyone can disagree on the fact that the Democrat's ideas when it comes to economy are, lets say, more realistic then any of the Republican's idea. The only reason Republicans (nearly) always come through is the fact that they are really good at making it sound evil to your typical american who doesnt understand a single word of what hes being sold. You really have to be pretty deeply involved with one of the parties not to notice that. | ||
|
Ksi
357 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:06 Egyptian_Head wrote: 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. How do quantify a person's merit though? Here in the good ol USA that's already the case if you consider money to equal merit. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:15 Ksi wrote: 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. Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close). Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980: 1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House. EDIT: Here's the poll before some troll starts bitching about my failure to include one. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
The Democrats in Congress are too liberal? You have got to be kidding me. It just shows how good the propaganda and messaging is from the Republicans/Neo-cons to have people actually believe that crap. I think we can all see the problems inherent in this expression of opinion. Mostly that you're assuming conclusions have been made that are in fact simply your opinions... 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. Oh my. Meritocracies are horrible ideas. (For very obvious reasons). (Mostly that it is impossible for a meritocracy to become anything but an Soviet-style oligarchy). (Which doesn't mean Communism necessarily, it just means the structure of the leadership cadre is similar). 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. Wait, what? 1. You contradict yourself at the end of your post ("the entire political spectrum would have to move left... to create a 50/50 split"). 2. Gerrymandering is used to disenfranchise both parties by whoever controls the State legislatures, which have historically been fairly split between the parties. 2B. Gerrymandering by federal law to create minority-majority (aka Democratic) districts has been going on for 45 years, are you opposed to that as well? 3. Population distributions? That is determined by people themselves, where they live. Not by a political party. 4. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2 to 1 (~40% to ~20%). With similar proportions for "conservative leaning independents" and "liberal leaning independents," with the rest saying they are "moderates" who tend to lean liberal on social issues mostly and centrist to slightly conservative on fiscal issues. Anyone suggesting that America is not a majority center-right country is fooling themselves. | ||
|
Egyptian_Head
South Africa508 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:26 Ksi wrote: How do quantify a person's merit though? Here in the good ol USA that's already the case if you consider money to equal merit. That is the the problem. And I do think I might be going a little to the extreme by removing the vote entirely after all people must have some recourse to improve there situation. Here is a basic outline of merit that I would use though. Knowledge of the state and how it functions. Knowledge of international affairs. Knowledge of how the economy functions and what is important for your countries economy. You get the idea, A test would be used with universities judging the results (non applicants judge only). The top 20% are considered along the following lines Who has the least business interests? Most community service? How they live there everyday life. and so on. Added to this I would make ruling quite unpleasant. Those in power have no right to privacy. Those in power have no right to property. (They may collect any property they own after they give up power). They shall earn no salary but the government will pay for expenses within reason. No one with impure motives would accept these conditions. Because I am not in favor of dictatorship, the ruler can be voted out with 75% of the population voting for it, however they cannot vote someone new in, they can only remove. All numbers are subject to change, tis is just a basic outline of how I would do it. | ||
|
Egyptian_Head
South Africa508 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote: I think we can all see the problems inherent in this expression of opinion. Mostly that you're assuming conclusions have been made that are in fact simply your opinions... Oh my. Meritocracies are horrible ideas. (For very obvious reasons). (Mostly that it is impossible for a meritocracy to become anything but an Soviet-style oligarchy). (Which doesn't mean Communism necessarily, it just means the structure of the leadership cadre is similar). This is why i have stated a way for the people to remove people from office. | ||
|
MattyClutch
United States711 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close). Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980: 1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House. EDIT: Here's the poll before some troll starts bitching about my failure to include one. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx I would point out that conservative doesn't imply republican. I would consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates because they are far too extreme on the social aspect and some of them even fiscal issues.. Anyway that all seems pretty offtopic as I pointed out in my last post here. It isn't really relevant who is 'winning' or whatever - these kinds of tactics are wrong. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
This is why i have stated a way for the people to remove people from office. So what? You've betrayed your meritocratic principle by giving the last word to the people - democracy. If the people can be trusted to throw them out, why can't they be trusted to put them in? Meritocracies are a bad idea because they don't work. Who decides the standards for being in power. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards. What are the standards for removing them. Who decides those. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards for the... It's just a big silly clusterfuck that democracy is very superior to. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:42 DeepElemBlues wrote: So what? You've betrayed your meritocratic principle by giving the last word to the people - democracy. If the people can be trusted to throw them out, why can't they be trusted to put them in? Meritocracies are a bad idea because they don't work. Who decides the standards for being in power. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards. What are the standards for removing them. Who decides those. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards for the... It's just a big silly clusterfuck that democracy is very superior to. First of all, you can combine the two. Secondly, how is democracy superior? I see both systems as bad. Could you explain to me, how a country can be a democracy when most people have no clue about what the people they vote for really want/will do? How are the people in control if the leaders get power by populism and brain washing (religion and hate spreading against "terrorists", "communists" "socialists" "immigrants" or any other label, which they falsely connect to various bad things that happen in the country), and if these leaders clearly do not have the goal of doing the best thing for the people? How can the senate represent the people if they receive funding from corporations (which want something in return), and if they earn nearly 1 million per year on average, when the average annual income in the country is around $30.000? Same question on privatization. How can people think corporations are better at all, in the case of for example health care or water supply? A government taking care of health care or the water supply will have the goal of providing the health care/water. A corporation doing this will use the service as a tool to always earn more and more profit. The goal is no longer providing an extremely important service, the service and the civilian are tools to generate money. | ||
|
Ksi
357 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close). Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980: 1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House. EDIT: Here's the poll before some troll starts bitching about my failure to include one. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx Of course this country is center-right, but when did I ever claim that somehow Republicans were center-right? My point was just that the far right has a much larger proportion of political power than it deserves. The democrats aren't even center-left, they are practically middle of the road or center-right. If voter turnout of all demographics were equal across the board, the Republican party as it is right now wouldn't even exist. It would have to shift its policies further to the left to survive. I was never claiming that somehow self described liberals outnumbered self described conservatives, only that the number of people who agree with the heavily-right Republicans is not proportional to the amount of political power they hold. If you held a gun up to the head of every American and asked them to choose between the two parties, the majority would be with the Democrats (probably reluctantly, but that's just how our politics are). The Democrats fail because their support base (which is larger than the Republican support base) doesn't vote or if they do vote, it is worth less. | ||
|
Egyptian_Head
South Africa508 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:42 DeepElemBlues wrote: So what? You've betrayed your meritocratic principle by giving the last word to the people - democracy. If the people can be trusted to throw them out, why can't they be trusted to put them in? Meritocracies are a bad idea because they don't work. Who decides the standards for being in power. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards. What are the standards for removing them. Who decides those. Who decides the standards for the deciders of the standards for the... It's just a big silly clusterfuck that democracy is very superior to. The last word have to be given to the people as a safety, if things are not going well they can change things, I am not a complete idiot. I am only in finding better people to rule, the current system does not bring those most qualified to rule to the position. I only want merit based as long as it brings better results, if adding a safety net to the system brings better results I am fine with it even if it goes against a system of merit. The reason the people cannot be trusted to put someone into power is because people are easily mislead by single issues, the hot topic of the day. They are mislead by policy choices of candidates, hell not only this but candidates straight up lie. People are fed bad information and vote accordingly. This just creates to many problems, people can be trusted with removing leaders though because you know when things aren't going well, it doesn't have the same problems as voting in people. Democracy in its current form ensures mediocrity in leaders, it ensures that people who have money will always determine what goes on. Although party politics is the real villain here. I am open to people being voted in if we get rid of political parties and candidates are chosen by merit. Though it is not my preferred option but it might be necessary. I have decided I am going to to say voting is fine, there is no objective way of determine the best candidate, however it is easy to determine the best x% very roughly given a set of criteria, truth is anyone in the top x% is probably fine. Let people vote for them, it will keep them happy. The only to ways to be removed are death and being voted out or resigning. Term lengths are irrelevant when people in power are not allowed property nor privacy. How to decide what merit is? Easy, this is something the people can do, besides the obvious knowledge requirements I spoke of earlier, a national discussion can be held to find out what people think is important in a leader, not policy wise though. If the people feel that university education is important then that can be a determination of merit. If lack of business interests is something they feel is important then so shall it be. This can happen every ten years to update it even. I am fine with the people deciding this, it will be there leader after all. This doesn't have the same problem as voting someone in because there are no policy decisions here, just people saying what they expect a leader to be. This is better because it limits the people who can stand for leadership, there can be no deception because whether or not they are chosen to stand is done well before the people even know who they are. Look for people who conform to what people want not, voting for the best of a bad lot. I am not advocating some sort of dictatorship where the people have no choice in the matter. Rather the goal is to ensure a better caliber of leader. So no this is not a meritocracy in a strict sense, I suppose it can be called democracy, (if a bit limited), although I wouldn't it is very much still a merit based system. The people might have to play a bigger role than I would like but whatever, its all about whatever brings the best results. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close). Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980: 1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House. EDIT: Here's the poll before some troll starts bitching about my failure to include one. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx I included an article on the previous page which demonstrated that you were wrong regarding Republican views being in the majority. Why did you fail to acknowledge my post? Let me quote myself: 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. | ||
|
hejakev
Sweden518 Posts
On September 09 2011 05:41 Bibdy wrote: 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. I never really thought of that. Aside from a few Bill Brasky quotes and some Janine Garofalo ranting, I can't find anything. I think it's dangerous. There are people that actually sit in front of the tv and go "He's right, Obama is a nazi" when they should be saying "He's right, Obama's health care plan isn't right for the nation because we don't have the structure to support such a system yet", etc. Those kinda people are being taught that Obama is a "socialist nazi muslim", aliens rape farmers, and that wrestling is real, because they don't have an actual news source that will tell them otherwise. | ||
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
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. 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. Huh. Interesting article. But it certainly leads me to think that you guys need some serious Senate reform. That is limiting the length of filibustering. You guys did it to Congress and it might be time to do it with the Senate. It would appear that the Republicans have found and perfected a serious exploit and are Marine-SCV rushing every single game. I mean, well done I guess, but deadlocking government completely negates the idea of changing government through people's choice. The only reason it isn't always deadlocked is the Democrats aren't as good at it. I'd almost like to see (if Obama loses) that the Democrats also perfect the art of obstruction and completely deadlock government, if it would mean that the it would force the government to seek Senate Reform. I suppose the Machiavellian would applaud the Republican's obstructionist tactics as they are using all possible methods to win. But when government has been ground to a halt, somebody might want to look at fixing it so that government is sem-functional. | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close). Also, the US has been a center-right country for a long time now. Polls consistently show that 40-45% of Americans identify themselves as being "conservative" and only 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as being "liberal," with the rest being "independent." These numbers are reflected in America's political trends. Just look at who has been president since 1980: 1980-1988: Ronald Reagan -- republican, very conservative 1988-1992: HW Bush -- republican, more moderate, but generally conservative 1992-2000: Bill Clinton -- democrat, but he governed conservatively after his first 2 years in office 2000-2008: W. Bush -- republican, conservative on most issues, but liberal on some domestic issues (not worth getting into this now). 2008-present: Barack Obama -- democrat, liberal That's not a lot of liberal governance in there. Absent a miracle economic turnaround over the next year, Obama's toast in next year's election, and there'll be another republican in the White House. EDIT: Here's the poll before some troll starts bitching about my failure to include one. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx One thing to note is that you are comparing definitions of what makes a "conservative" and a "liberal" across different time spans. I'm not sure if you are intentionally failing to mention this, or don't find it important. Someone could probably argue that many people could argue that Obama is a radical conservative because he has been opening up US land to energy companies (alaska, gulf, although both not nearly as fast as the oil companies would like), lowering taxes, while considering a reduction of of social security. Or that Bush is a radical socialist because TARP enacted in his term directly bailed out US banks. It's too easy to point at just a couple points in a presidency and make sweeping generalizations. But those types are points tend to care more about winning an argument than reaching the truth or finding a mutually beneficial common ground. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:32 xDaunt wrote: Not to burst your bubble, but there has only been one presidential election where the winner of the most electoral votes did not win the most popular votes (Bush 2000; I'd have to double-check Kennedy in 1960, which was also very close). http://americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/f/pres_unpopular.htm More than once, just so you know. You're probably right about the US being more conservative than not, though, especially by our socialist standards in Europe. | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote: 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. Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt. That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this. Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree. However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents). sources other than my recollection of events: http://zogby.com/news/2011/07/11/ibope-zogby-national-debt-poll-majority-prefer-cuts-over-revenue-increases/ (i don't know how this source leans) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/14/polls-voters-want-debt-limit-deal-to-cut-spending-and-raise-taxes/ (obviously leans conservative) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43813173/ns/politics/t/poll-americans-want-compromise-debt/ (leans liberal) http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx (supposedly neutral. These same pollsters are the ones that show record low obama approval rates) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 09 2011 08:37 Sanctimonius wrote: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/f/pres_unpopular.htm More than once, just so you know. You're probably right about the US being more conservative than not, though, especially by our socialist standards in Europe. Ah, always good to learn something new. | ||
| ||
