President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1076

On October 28 2012 01:46 ShadeR wrote:
what is it exactly that caused the republican party to become what it is today. so completely anti-intellectual?

On October 28 2012 01:46 ShadeR wrote:
what is it exactly that caused the republican party to become what it is today. so completely anti-intellectual?

On October 28 2012 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Yeah that's not used any more.

On October 28 2012 01:59 Trumpet wrote:

Yes and no. I live in Louisiana, and it certainly isn't explicit, but it's still kinda there. When our politicians mention people on welfare, food stamps, gov't aid of any kind, they mean exactly one thing and voters still respond to it.

But it's not exactly ancient history either, the most obvious recent example I can think of is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke (early 90s)

Though he was asking what made the republican party get to the anti-intellectual status is has today, I'd say southern strategy is a big part, if not the biggest part, of why that is, regardless of whether or not it's still actively employed.

On October 28 2012 00:56 micronesia wrote:

If you consider voting for the wrong person throwing away your vote, then many people in Florida in that election threw away their vote. However, the problem wasn't that they voted third party; it was that they voted for the wrong person. Often, there is overlap between the two when a person's best interest is taken into account (as was the case then), but this does not mean that voting for a third part is inherently throwing away your vote.

On October 28 2012 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Ahhh, OK. I can't argue with you on that since you live in such a different area... It's sad to hear politicians still engaging in that crap.

I'm not impressed with Nate Silver. I check his site daily, because I'm too lazy to make my own statistical model (not that I couldn't - I have a quanty background). Silver is liberal and betrays those biases occasionally - like everyone knows the Time poll is bullshit, but he still gave it weight in his Ohio model anyway. I don't think he's actively trying to manipulate things; I think it just doesn't occur to him to question certain aspects of his echo chamber, and that filters into his data. You're only as good as your data.
Last edit: 2012-10-27 15:17:02

Regardless of who wins in November Obama needs to face impeachment hearings for Obamacare and Benghazi.

On October 28 2012 02:06 ThomasjServo wrote:


It isn't that they are anti-intellectual, that is a rather inflammatory way of describing the it. I feel it is rooted in the fact Republicans draw ~25% of their support from Evangelical Christians. Having to appeal to this base may often give the impression that Republicans draw more from faith based sources or "moral" arguments as opposed to broadly supported scientific studies.Rather than strict political theory, based on small government and free markets exclusively, they have been leashed to religious doctrines as a key portion of they're voter base.

See Romney running in 1994 in Massachusetts, a much more liberal environment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQGObiGGqY
It is a far cry from the Romney we see today because of the type of Republican he was appealing to and the fact that he was Running against a Kennedy.

In this sense I feel the Republican party is relatively bifurcated. On one hand you have the "moral" Republicans, who draw some type of authority from "God's Will," while championing conservative policy; the other I would term more "Ayn Rand" Republicans. This is not a direct reflection on Rand's views politically but more to say they are concerned that government has grown beyond a reasonable size and that states and local authorities are better equipped to respond and address local problems.They are not as concerned if at all with God in government or religion.

Rather unfortunately for Republicans their representation abroad seems to be drawn from the section of the party with much stronger religious views. Think the Michelle Bachmanns, Glenn Becks, Pat Robertsons, and George Bushes; the simple fact is a lot of the rejection of "intellectual" material in my opinion stems from appealing to this portion of their base.

As a Liberal myself, in 24 years, I have yet to meet a self described Republican who subscribes to the extreme Christian right (Granted I live in Minnesota and we have not voted for a Republican President since the 1950s). Rather they feel the Republican economic doctrine and views on personal liberty are the more correct path to take for the country. Most are reasonable people with legitimate points of view about their government, they are just misrepresented in the media.

On October 28 2012 01:34 hzflank wrote:


I am not sure if you (Americans, not you personally) care, but if Romney is elected it will make people in most of the world outside the USA think less of the USA and it's citizens.

The US is already far to the right of most countries, so when you vote for the right wing candidate it seems that Americans are different people to the rest of us.

On October 28 2012 02:06 ThomasjServo wrote:


It isn't that they are anti-intellectual, that is a rather inflammatory way of describing the it. I feel it is rooted in the fact Republicans draw ~25% of their support from Evangelical Christians. Having to appeal to this base may often give the impression that Republicans draw more from faith based sources or "moral" arguments as opposed to broadly supported scientific studies.Rather than strict political theory, based on small government and free markets exclusively, they have been leashed to religious doctrines as a key portion of they're voter base.

See Romney running in 1994 in Massachusetts, a much more liberal environment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQGObiGGqY
It is a far cry from the Romney we see today because of the type of Republican he was appealing to and the fact that he was Running against a Kennedy.

In this sense I feel the Republican party is relatively bifurcated. On one hand you have the "moral" Republicans, who draw some type of authority from "God's Will," while championing conservative policy; the other I would term more "Ayn Rand" Republicans. This is not a direct reflection on Rand's views politically but more to say they are concerned that government has grown beyond a reasonable size and that states and local authorities are better equipped to respond and address local problems.They are not as concerned if at all with God in government or religion.

Rather unfortunately for Republicans their representation abroad seems to be drawn from the section of the party with much stronger religious views. Think the Michelle Bachmanns, Glenn Becks, Pat Robertsons, and George Bushes; the simple fact is a lot of the rejection of "intellectual" material in my opinion stems from appealing to this portion of their base.

As a Liberal myself, in 24 years, I have yet to meet a self described Republican who subscribes to the extreme Christian right (Granted I live in Minnesota and we have not voted for a Republican President since the 1950s). Rather they feel the Republican economic doctrine and views on personal liberty are the more correct path to take for the country. Most are reasonable people with legitimate points of view about their government, they are just misrepresented in the media.

On October 28 2012 02:40 DoubleReed wrote:
The anti-intellectualism of the Republican party is the rhetoric that Republicans use against teachers and college institutions. Santorum keeps railing against colleges, despite the fact that you know, he went to one. Or when Mitt Romney said we don't need any more teachers. Or just the simple massive amount of disrespect both sides have toward the teaching profession. Or simply when the rhetoric comes to privatizing schools or reducing standards.

That's not to mention the crazier right-wing that wants to politicize evolution and scientific theory altogether.

You can try to argue that it's just from a couple of nutjobs. But it really isn't. We see them trying to eliminate student loan benefits. We see them discouraging people from learning and finding out more. You just don't see Republicans (the spokespeople not the citizens) respecting colleges and the teaching profession.

On October 28 2012 01:59 Trumpet wrote:

Yes and no. I live in Louisiana, and it certainly isn't explicit, but it's still kinda there. When our politicians mention people on welfare, food stamps, gov't aid of any kind, they mean exactly one thing and voters still respond to it.

But it's not exactly ancient history either, the most obvious recent example I can think of is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke (early 90s)

Anyway, he was asking what made the republican party get to the anti-intellectual status is has today, I'd say southern strategy is a big part, if not the biggest part, of why that is, regardless of whether or not it's still actively employed.