On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I think you underestimate just how many of the white middle-class people that make up the majority of the Republican Party are homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, and racist. Not a majority, mind you, but many more than just the small minority who have a platform to speak from.
I'm speaking from the point of view of being in Denver, Colorado, and even though our state has gone blue in the past two elections, it is startling what you hear from the conservative religious base, mainly coming from Colorado Springs but also from suburbs of Denver. In the very Christian parts of this country, the south and the mid-west, homophobia and racism are still alive and well. You have to go deep into the bible belt to find people who will come out and say it, for the most part, but there are plenty of people in suburban Colorado (my ex-girlfriend and her entire family and church being some of them) who still think Obama is a Muslim bent on destroying America from the inside. These people are for the most part uneducated, obviously, but they are currently a part of the Republican constituency.
It's time for the Republican Party to trim the fat and let these people go. There are enough educated, fiscal conservatives that have progressive views on social liberties to go forward without the religious fundamentalists and fear-mongers. Not to mention that if you drop the religious lunatics, you bring over many more Democrats and Independents who are terrified of the current Republican Party. The Republicans are essentially giving these elections away by continuing to cater to the far right, which appeals to no one but a very small percentage of the voter base. The democrats are able to claim everything to the left of "slightly conservative" instead of "neutral," which is enough to claim victory.
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.
Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.
They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.
Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.
You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series.
Or to any Oakland Raiders game.
Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside.
Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off.
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.
Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.
They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.
Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.
You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series.
Or to any Oakland Raiders game.
Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside.
Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off.
I'd say it is far more accurate to use sporting culture in the US to make a point in regards to how much we love competition and "clash" than to characterize our election process as a "civil cold war". Like, seriously? Do I really need to go into how stupid that is?
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
The Republican party is going to either change or die.
They allied themselves with Fundamentalists to create a powerful base but now they're stuck fighting against abortion, gay marriage, and minorities. Forever, or they lose their base. Combine that with Reagan era Republicans who don't save the country money, they spend it and lose it at an alarming rate.
The Republicans have to change either their social stance or their fiscal policies. They have absolutely nothing to offer someone unless you're incredibly religious or you subscribe to the theory that by spending mass amounts of money on the military and tax cuts America will magically re-make that money decades from now.
As America becomes less religious there's really no hope for the current Republican party. They'll either change or they'll stop winning elections until they're replaced by a new party.
Pretty much. Its not just religion either Obama won blacks, hispanics, asians, young people, women overall, and the non-religious The only group Romney won convincingly with was white men.
Guess which group are increasing their share of the population.
The point i was trying to make was a bout the sheer extremity and amount of hatred. I've seen interviews with republicans saying that they wish all democrats would die (and that they would go to hell for eternal torture when they do). It works both ways too, democrats seem to think that republicans are uneducated, stupid rednecks.
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.
Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.
They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.
Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.
You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series.
Or to any Oakland Raiders game.
Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside.
Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off.
And you missed my point. Politics is a game. People throw all this hyperbole and hatred around, but at the end of the day, nobody is protesting that Obama won the election and will be the president again.
If he had lost, there is absolutely no doubt that he would have stepped down for Romney, no matter how much people complained that the country had chosen incorrectly.
So what I'm trying to say is that the debate is often lively and vigorous, but we can separate politics from our normal lives.
It's easy saying they need to have a more moderate party and candidates but these guys do have to fight through a Republican nominee process before they get to take on the Democrat candidate, and to win that they have to appeal to as much of the party's base as possible. While those votes are still up for grabs the Republican nominee will have to appeal to the right-wing, the Baptist, the xenophobic or racist votes, then swing more to the centre for the main election. Right now it's hurting the Republicans for having those elements in their base but if they don't try and pander to them, they run the risk of losing the nomination before the election.
Personally I want to see a new party in the US, the far-right. Have the Republicans move centre-right, the Dems can stay centre left and the nut-jobs can move off for their Tea Party and libertarianism.
edit: and Donald Trump can lead them, apparently. Correct me if I'm wrong but Obama won the popular vote, no?
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.
Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.
They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.
Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.
You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series.
Or to any Oakland Raiders game.
Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside.
Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off.
And you missed my point. Politics is a game. People throw all this hyperbole and hatred around, but at the end of the day, nobody is protesting that Obama won the election and will be the president again.
If he had lost, there is absolutely no doubt that he would have stepped down for Romney, no matter how much people complained that the country had chosen incorrectly.
So what I'm trying to say is that the debate is often lively and vigorous, but we can separate politics from our normal lives.
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.
Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.
They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.
Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.
You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series.
Or to any Oakland Raiders game.
Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside.
Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off.
Have you been paying attention to the campaign? It was nearly all about the issues. Even the personal attacks are about the issues, e.g. portraying Romney like he doesn't care about poor people.
It was not a popularity contest. It was a campaign fought on the issues. There were lots of attacks, but that's how politics works, when you get attacked, you have to attack back.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
On November 09 2012 01:27 mordek wrote: Ok, I have a request for all you well-informed posters. I'm looking to take responsibility for my political views. I grew up Republican and values like you earn what you get, work hard and no one should take that away, and conservative social values. I've leaned Libertarian since the end of high school thinking small government is best, protecting individual rights is important (I still have "conservative" values but I know it's not the government's job to impose some of my values on others)
I think all you liberals make a compelling argument for single-payer healthcare. I am opposed in principle. I don't really like the government making it mandatory but I also really want everyone to have good healthcare. If single-payer is indeed more cost-effective for everyone I would support it. I'm surrounded by some of the right-wing people that are ridiculed in this thread. I think their intentions are good but as I'm exploring this and arguing discussing this with them I need some substance on the subject and need to be better informed. Can you help me out with studies/articles?
I don't think anyone replied to you so here is a site with a list of studies, national and state wide.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
You really think the Republican Party managed to alienate every nonwhite ethnicity, the LGBT community and an entire gender through a perception problem?
You really think the Republican Party is as progressive as the Democratic Party on these issues, and that every one of the above communities are voting against their best interests because...why?
When people hear things like "Federal Marriage Amendment" from people like, I don't know, Mitt Romney, it's not a case of bad grammar or unintended remarks.
Not too surprising, these sorts of data mining are used a lot by businesses from modelling traffic to ranking recommendations on Amazon.
Nerds use math to beat Romney. Again. Feels good.
I don't think you can actually delude yourself into thinking that Republicans are anti-intellectual. And you certainly don't believe Romney didn't have something in the same vein working for him. The real story of that news article, imo, is that they consolidated databases and that allowed them to wield the data to a much a greater extent in helping the Obama campaign.
Of course, denying reality and science is an intrinsic component of the conservative worldview, so denying unfavorable polling is just an natural extension as I've argued before the election.
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
A nearly 50-50 race is what you Republicans deluded yourself into thinking. And one of the reasons why you were dead wrong. Obama had a small, but consistent lead in the battleground states. Obama had the momentum, and eventually a 90% chance of winning.
I don't need to "find" reasons to bash the Republican party, I have heaps. Republicans are against spending craptons of money? Are you serious? Republicans have been blowing up the budget for decades. Bush turned a deficit into a surplus. Romney wanted to spend $5T on tax rate cuts, which was mathematically impossible to make revenue neutral, and then an additional $2T on defense.
Yes, the debt has increased under Obama, but that's because of the global financial crisis, falling tax revenue, the wars, and continuation of Bush tax cuts, which Republicans refuse to let end. If we look at spending growth Obama hasn't increase it but much. The stimulus wasn't large in comparison. This might partly be due to Bush blowing up the deficit so large that the $800 billion stimulus wasn't too relatively large as a percentage, and what amounts to "austerity" as stimulus money fades. Spending more money on more stimulus would have helped the economy.
Yes, there is a war on women. Romney wants to appoint judges to overturn Woe v Wade, but he use to say that he was pro-choice, but then he's pro-life. He's flip-flopped so much on this issue.
I suggest you get the facts, and not whatever nonsense your totally Republican family says before you vote, because that's the sort of anti-intellectualism and denial that led to conservatives to be so sure that Obama was gone, and then utterly shocked when they realized that they were dead wrong.
To be fair the US also had a crisis in the 80's and 90's, Clinton came back in power when it was going towards its end.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/donald-trump-2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.olymanifesto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/republicans-increase-debt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FiW5I95R5xg/0.jpg)
