I'm gonna make a presentation about this election at school, is there anything you'd suggest I include? I am sorry, this might not be the right place to ask...
Anyone who thinks that Ron Paul is an electable candidate is delusional beyond all means. Totally barring a well defended critique of libertarianism, which I think is not the hardest thing to do, from a pure policy standpoint he simply steps on far too many toes. And I really am curious as to why state governments have done so much to impress so many. Saying "Let the states handle it" when state governments routinely run horrible, self-inflicted budget deficits is silly.
On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote: not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh.
The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans.
That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them.
Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
On November 15 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote: Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is an electable candidate is delusional beyond all means.
I somewhat agree with this, but I think it would depend on who he chose as a running mate and if he made a compromise on his immigration policies. Strictly pretending he isn't as old as he is anyway.
The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans.
That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them.
Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote: [quote] That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them.
Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
He is basically Ron Paul but actually willing to make compromises with the GOP in order to get a shot at running for President. He endorsed Mitt Romney, which a lot of people didn't like. As far as actual policies, I don't know the exact differences between him and Ron Paul, but the ones I have read are almost identical.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
He is basically Ron Paul but actually willing to make compromises with the GOP in order to get a shot at running for President. He endorsed Mitt Romney, which a lot of people didn't like. As far as actual policies, I don't know the exact differences between him and Ron Paul, but the ones I have read are almost identical.
Well - I hope he learns a lesson from Romney/Ryan about pandering too much to the right...
Of course, the conservatives that say Romney/Ryan lost because they didn't go far enough right will disagree with me
On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote: [quote] That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them.
Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
He is basically Ron Paul but actually willing to make compromises with the GOP in order to get a shot at running for President. He endorsed Mitt Romney, which a lot of people didn't like. As far as actual policies, I don't know the exact differences between him and Ron Paul, but the ones I have read are almost identical.
Well - I hope he learns a lesson from Romney/Ryan about pandering too much to the right...
Of course, the conservatives that say Romney/Ryan lost because they didn't go far enough right will disagree with me
I think the 2 biggest contributing factors to why they lost are:
1. Very weak appeal to the latino vote 2. Unnecessarily using dirty tactics to disenfranchise Ron Paul delegates
I think 2 is more important than alot of people realize. People were pretty pissed about it, and had Ron Paul gotten a fair shot at the Republican nomination and still lost, they might have actually voted for Mitt Romney.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
Yeah...like I said about Ron Paul. They have pretty much identical stances on immigration and no one can reasonably expect to get elected unless they are willing to make compromises there.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
Eliminate birthright citizenship? Is that even a thing you can do as President? Isn't that part of the Constitution?
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
One could hope he changes his stance on anti-immigration - but then again, I really know nothing of him and his leanings. As I said - I really adored Huntsman as the Republican candidate. And then seeing him get overshadowed by Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum... *massive massive sigh*. His economic policy needed work, and his social policies remain relatively right - but at least this guy was willing to compromise and actually is pro-immigration.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
Eliminate birthright citizenship? Is that even a thing you can do as President? Isn't that part of the Constitution?
He and his father are somewhat selective. His father routinely campaigned on a total-overseas-withdrawl-of-troops without breathing a word of renegotiating the treaties that are the constitutionally-binding law of the land.
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
Eliminate birthright citizenship? Is that even a thing you can do as President? Isn't that part of the Constitution?
14th amendment. No way it is going to change.
On the contrast, is anybody else pissed that Kucinich (somebody who is much more appealing to immigrants) lost his seat in Congress because of the gerrymandering in Ohio?
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I think the only way that the 2 party system could realistically change in order to allow the less popular candidates to have a shot (and give the people a chance to vote for who they ACTUALLY want, instead of who they hate less) would be to change the way we vote completely. First of all, I think the electoral college is totally flawed, because if its goal is to get the smaller states (population wise) more attention, it is failing miserably if you look at all of the states in the northwest (literally no campaigning done there). The best idea I have seen so far is in this video below:
However, unless something crazy happens (like a President winning the electoral college with only 30-35% of the popular vote) I don't see any changes ever actually happening
The Republicans are the ones who won't give up the electoral college - as it is the great balancer vs California and New York.
What about Rand Paul? I actually know nothing about him except that he went on the Daily Show and was pretty personable.
Given the results of the past election, the fact that Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education and eliminate birthright citizenship make him almost singularly unelectable; I'm not sure a hardline anti-immigration stance floats anymore.
Eliminate birthright citizenship? Is that even a thing you can do as President? Isn't that part of the Constitution?
He more less said that if he had the ability, he'd appoint judges to the supreme court who would be open to reviewing the 14th amendment and changing it given what he sees as the horrifying tide of hispanics that needs stemming. It is a crazy notion to begin with, so the mere fact that he thinks it important he give it public light speaks volumes in terms of what sort of priorities he has.
As for Huntsman, I would like him if I could totally ignore every facet of his economic policy. But alas, his lionization of corporate influence in the United States through suggestions of things like reducing the corporate tax on overseas revenue of US corporations, something I see as absolutely fucking incredibly stupid, renders him unfavorable in my opinion. His solution to our economic situation is literally 100% in favor of business over citizenry. Bleh.
Agreed on the economic policy point, but this is the same man who said, regarding Obamacare:
"I'm comfortable with a requirement – you can call it whatever you want, but at some point we're going to have to get serious about how we deal with this issue"
So I would hope he's the type to actually work with democrats on the economic issues.
The idea that somehow coming up with a immigration policy that appeals more to latino's will fix the republican party is simply stupid anyway. Someone posted this before, in which Brooks quite convincingly argues that the disconnect between republicans and minorities is much bigger than 'immigration policy', and moving to the left on immigration will just make the democrats go to the left even more to keep a very productive wedge issue in play.
A majority of voters supported raising taxes on the rich, supporting maintaining the welfare state and supported an incredibly weak 'big government' incumbent over a generic 'small government' republican. That's not the defeat of a candidate, or of a single policy, its the defeat of the entire party platform which is out of touch with a too large a section of the american electorate.
On November 15 2012 06:32 JinDesu wrote: Agreed on the economic policy point, but this is the same man who said, regarding Obamacare:
"I'm comfortable with a requirement – you can call it whatever you want, but at some point we're going to have to get serious about how we deal with this issue"
So I would hope he's the type to actually work with democrats on the economic issues.
I will say that the mere fact that he even mentions bipartisan behavior is a great credit to his political sensibility.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Fine. But supposing they have (say they agree to drastic military spending cuts, as I mentioned before, for the sake of argument, because I realize it's unlikely), I still ask what Democrats and liberals would be willing to sacrifice in order to meet a compromise with Republicans.
EPT
