|
On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower.
If by that you mean the most opportunistic, slimy Etch-A-sketch impersonation of a Presidential candidate - then yes.
|
On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower.
Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system.
|
On October 03 2013 06:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system.
My point is simply that, if a person thinks Romney is too conservative, they are a lot cause for the Republicans regardless of who is nominated.
|
On October 03 2013 06:46 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 06:06 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system. My point is simply that, if a person thinks Romney is too conservative, they are a lot cause for the Republicans regardless of who is nominated.
If that is your point, then your point also necessitates the end of the republican party as a formidable political force.
|
On October 03 2013 06:46 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 06:06 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system. My point is simply that, if a person thinks Romney is too conservative, they are a lot cause for the Republicans regardless of who is nominated.
The problem is not that a candite is too conservative it's that to win the republican primary you need to appeal to totally different kind of people than the general election . So in order to get the nomination you have to pretty much alienate tons of moderate/undecided voters that you have to try and win back again after you're the candidate . Most of this is pretty much issues like gay marriage , abortion , immigration/-reform etc. where the majority of the country vehemently disagrees with the conservative base.
|
On October 03 2013 06:56 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 06:46 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 06:06 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system. My point is simply that, if a person thinks Romney is too conservative, they are a lot cause for the Republicans regardless of who is nominated. The problem is not that a candite is too conservative it's that to win the republican primary you need to appeal to totally different kind of people than the general election . So in order to get the nomination you have to pretty much alienate tons of moderate/undecided voters that you have to try and win back again after you're the candidate . Most of this is pretty much issues like gay marriage , abortion , immigration/-reform etc. where the majority of the country vehemently disagrees with the conservative base.
Exactly. And doing this also shows the public you say one thing in the primary and another in the election and boom your a flip-flop.
Just another problem the Tea Party has created for the Republican Party.
|
I've been wondering if this doesn't perhaps show that many politicians in the US may be getting overconfident. The US has been relatively stable for a long time now, and it feels like nothing could bring the behemoth down a notch, and that's why the republicans are acting recklessly... they think the US can take it.
I think it's sad that so many republicans are willing to be incredibly irresponsible. At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that the other side was also elected legitimately and you shouldn't fuck your country. These things shouldn't be "weapons" to affect policy.
|
United States24701 Posts
On October 03 2013 07:10 Djzapz wrote:
I've been wondering if this doesn't perhaps show that many politicians in the US may be getting overconfident. The US has been relatively stable for a long time now, and it feels like nothing could bring the behemoth down a notch,
I've been wondering the same thing. I feel like it isn't just politicians who are suffering from this delusion, though. Many people in the USA think this country is somehow exempt from the rules and facts regarding all nations in the history of the map.... and that isn't the case.
|
On October 03 2013 06:56 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 06:46 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 06:06 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system. My point is simply that, if a person thinks Romney is too conservative, they are a lot cause for the Republicans regardless of who is nominated. The problem is not that a candite is too conservative it's that to win the republican primary you need to appeal to totally different kind of people than the general election . So in order to get the nomination you have to pretty much alienate tons of moderate/undecided voters that you have to try and win back again after you're the candidate . Most of this is pretty much issues like gay marriage , abortion , immigration/-reform etc. where the majority of the country vehemently disagrees with the conservative base.
Both parties have the issue of struggling with the base in primaries and the general public during the election. Reps are struggling more right now, for sure.
|
On October 03 2013 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 06:56 s3rp wrote:On October 03 2013 06:46 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 06:06 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 05:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 03 2013 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2013 05:27 Shiragaku wrote:On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. Yeah, I always got that vibe from TEA Baggers :/ They are one of the most inconsistent political groups I came across. And what disturbs me more is how opportunistic they are and how...I don't wanna use Orwellian since he is overused, but just plain messed up. Bleh...but I prefer to call the TEA Party batshit insane rather than to analyze their ideology because I am not sure if they really have much of an ideology anymore. They seem like children at this point just opposing Democrats just for the sake of it :/ Pretty sure that was the entire reason for their creation. After the Obama campaign's brilliant run in 2008, it was obvious the GOP was toast unless they managed to energize their base the way Obama did. The tea party was 100% essential in order for the GOP to not just slip into irrelevance. It gave them the breath of life they needed to figure out a way to transition away. Unfortunately for them (great for the world), it got a bit out of control, and it is now making their prospects for 2014 look very grim. After this whole stunt, I think a lot of the more moderate conservatives are going to just opt out of voting when it comes down to democrat vs tea party. Before, they likely thought "might be a little extreme, but I agree with more of what they are doing". Now, its clearly just obstructive, which is gonna lose the GOP a lot more moderate voters. Likely more than they gained from the tea party to begin with. The GOP needed a way to reach out to undecided voters, the Tea Party movement has driven them further and further away from the Republican camp. Elections aren't about getting your hardcore members to vote for you. Its about winning the rest of the country. Im sorry, this just doesn't compute. Mccain and Romney are about as Liberal as you can get while still being a Republican. The strategy that Democrats suggest for Republicans has failed (you can include Bob Dole as well) 3/3 times it has been tried. If people actually wanted compromise, Romney would be President. He is the most pragmatic and compromising Presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Do you have cataracts or are you simply suffering from dementia? I am assuming that you're saying republican candidates need to be more conservative and with a larger of helping of crazy than they already provided. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, seeing how the ultra super conservatives failed to get the presidential nomination. However, I fully support your dream bro. I too would like to see a future where the republican party dissolves itself and leaves a power vacuum which would allow for a multi-party system. My point is simply that, if a person thinks Romney is too conservative, they are a lot cause for the Republicans regardless of who is nominated. The problem is not that a candite is too conservative it's that to win the republican primary you need to appeal to totally different kind of people than the general election . So in order to get the nomination you have to pretty much alienate tons of moderate/undecided voters that you have to try and win back again after you're the candidate . Most of this is pretty much issues like gay marriage , abortion , immigration/-reform etc. where the majority of the country vehemently disagrees with the conservative base. Both parties have the issue of struggling with the base in primaries and the general public during the election. Reps are struggling more right now, for sure.
The Democrats have the "advantage" in that the status quo basically leads us to their ideal world because of bureaucratic inertia and the slowly increasing burdens of programs already in place.
|
On October 03 2013 05:40 HotShizz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 05:11 Shiragaku wrote:
the TEA Party seems to be pro-capitalist, but very critical of corporations, bailouts in particular. It's funny how they were originally a grassroots right-wing populist movement but were then hijacked by the corporate elite whose original existence was based around opposing. That's a bit of a strange outlook tbh. The tea party is in favor of corporations (private interest, etc) but believe that corporations which can't survive on their own should just die, as dictated by free market capitalism. They're not particularly critical to corporations, they're mostly critical of how the government spends taxes to help the "bad" ones. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been nearly as angry about the bailout if it had happened under a republican government. They just liked to paint the initiative of the democrats in black to make them look bad. just as a reminder, the bailouts were under George W. so it did happen under a republican. and for some of the people in this thread please stop speaking in generalizations. It makes you sound like a thoughtless drone, spouting ideologies that you don't actually understand. Have a problem with the policies, not the people. Stop saying what "tea baggers" are or aren't or what liberals are or aren't. People are people, ignorance is ignorance, and it cannot be cured through gross generalization or bigotry.
Definitely agree here. Thoughtless generalizations and idealogical stances are not valid points in a serious discussion.
|
On October 03 2013 07:15 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 07:10 Djzapz wrote:
I've been wondering if this doesn't perhaps show that many politicians in the US may be getting overconfident. The US has been relatively stable for a long time now, and it feels like nothing could bring the behemoth down a notch, I've been wondering the same thing. I feel like it isn't just politicians who are suffering from this delusion, though. Many people in the USA think this country is somehow exempt from the rules and facts regarding all nations in the history of the map.... and that isn't the case.
This is the US. History started about 200 years ago, and it began with "forefathers" who are demi-god like beings that wrote documents as sacred as scripture and could basically do no wrong. Even though they made provisions for amending and revising our governing documents, you shouldn't actually do it, because forefathers.
When the majority of the US voter population buys into that ridiculously stupid narrative, you get a government like ours.
|
On October 03 2013 07:10 Djzapz wrote:
I've been wondering if this doesn't perhaps show that many politicians in the US may be getting overconfident. The US has been relatively stable for a long time now, and it feels like nothing could bring the behemoth down a notch, and that's why the republicans are acting recklessly... they think the US can take it.
I think it's sad that so many republicans are willing to be incredibly irresponsible. At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that the other side was also elected legitimately and you shouldn't fuck your country. These things shouldn't be "weapons" to affect policy.
There is a little of this, at least among Republicans (though realistically the government shutdown won't have any history-changing consequences on US power/success - the debt ceiling, on the other hand, at least has that potential). I think the bigger problem is not confidence in the US so much as confidence in their own position. They come from very conservative districts, spend their whole time talking to each other, their twitter followers, watching Fox News, etc. and they really just don't understand how they look to everyone else. Somehow they're still convinced the public is behind them and hates obamacare, despite election results going the other way a couple times.
|
On October 03 2013 07:55 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 07:10 Djzapz wrote:
I've been wondering if this doesn't perhaps show that many politicians in the US may be getting overconfident. The US has been relatively stable for a long time now, and it feels like nothing could bring the behemoth down a notch, and that's why the republicans are acting recklessly... they think the US can take it.
I think it's sad that so many republicans are willing to be incredibly irresponsible. At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that the other side was also elected legitimately and you shouldn't fuck your country. These things shouldn't be "weapons" to affect policy. There is a little of this, at least among Republicans (though realistically the government shutdown won't have any history-changing consequences on US power/success - the debt ceiling, on the other hand, at least has that potential). I think the bigger problem is not confidence in the US so much as confidence in their own position. They come from very conservative districts, spend their whole time talking to each other, their twitter followers, watching Fox News, etc. and they really just don't understand how they look to everyone else. Somehow they're still convinced the public is behind them and hates obamacare, despite election results going the other way a couple times.
I don't think the politicians you are talking about are necessarily convinced the public as a whole are behind them whoever there district if very much behind them and that is the only thing of interest to said politicians because there the people getting them re-elected. Once you take a single step over the district line they couldn't care less anymore about the people living there.
|
Could someone in simple words explain obamacare to me? As far as I understand it, companies are supposed to pay some fee for their employees, which in turn pays everyones health insurance(?).
Why isn't it just on the same tax that pays the military and the police?
Just some fresh news from over the pond, in Sweden it's starting to become very popular in the middle class and upper classes to demand higher taxes.
|
Just wanting to report a bit about the effects of the shutdown on NASA because I'm a space science fan and know a bit about it. If that does not interest you, don't bother reading.
The NASA is shut down (like 95% of workers are at home). This is especially severe for the MAVEN mission to Mars which was to launch in about a month. If the shutdown is not cancelled in the next few days, the time window for travelling to Mars will be over. There is a time window only every two years!
That means, the mission will probably be delayed by two years because of the shutdown.
But that is not the most severe problem. NASA's curiosity rover, the most expensive and advanced rover ever sent to Mars, just started its scientific work last year. It needs satellites for communicating with Earth. But the satellites it is using right now are very old and long beyong their planned life span. They can break any day. As such, MAVEN was planned as a replacement, for communicating with Curiosity in the years to come.
Now as MAVEN probably won't start until in 2 years, if the old satellites fail, curiosity is doomed and there would be no way for curiosity to send its data, pictures etc. from Mars to Earth anymore. Curiosity mission would be done.
So, in conclusion, 10s of years of scientific work and 2,5 billion US tax money (!) may be gone, just because of that Obamacare thing.
Good job, "tea party" guys. Well done.
|
On October 03 2013 08:37 Euronyme wrote:
Could someone in simple words explain obamacare to me? As far as I understand it, companies are supposed to pay some fee for their employees, which in turn pays everyones health insurance(?).
Why isn't it just on the same tax that pays the military and the police?
Just some fresh news from over the pond, in Sweden it's starting to become very popular in the middle class and upper classes to demand higher taxes.
It's not the same general tax because that goes to the government, and health care isn't provided by the government. It's provided by private doctors/hospitals, paid for by private insurance companies. The basic idea is that you pay a fixed amount whether you're sick or not, and the insurance company pays for your health care. They lose money on people who get unlucky and sick, but make money on everyone else. Unfortunately, it would not be in a company's interest to offer this normally, because people could game the system by just waiting until they got sick and buying it then. As a result insurance companies have to put in a rule saying pre-existing conditions aren't covered.
Traditionally people get health insurance as part of their benefits from their employer - companies with lots of employees have this big group that will average out the risk of the people and can therefore negotiate better rates. Buying insurance on your own is very expensive.
Obamacare does two things. First it requires that employers (above a certain size) cover healthcare for their employees. Most do this already, but for low-wage workers it's the equivalent of a pay raise. The other thing is to undo the problem where if you lose your insurance you can't ever get coverage for illnesses you already have. To do that it requires that insurers cover pre-existing conditions. That re-creates the problem of gaming the system, so there's a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance to prevent that.
Now, that "individual mandate" is hard on some people. So the income threshold below which medicaid (government-provided care for the poor) kicks in is increased. For people who aren't wealthy but aren't that poor, there are partial subsidies to help cover the cost of buying insurance on your own.
|
On October 03 2013 09:03 Caladan wrote:
Just wanting to report a bit about the effects of the shutdown on NASA because I'm a space science fan and know a bit about it. If that does not interest you, don't bother reading.
The NASA is shut down (like 95% of workers are at home). This is especially severe for the MAVEN mission to Mars which was to launch in about a month. If the shutdown is not cancelled in the next few days, the time window for travelling to Mars will be over. There is a time window only every two years!
That means, the mission will probably be delayed by two years because of the shutdown.
But that is not the most severe problem. NASA's curiosity rover, the most expensive and advanced rover ever sent to Mars, just started its scientific work last year. It needs satellites for communicating with Earth. But the satellites it is using right now are very old and long beyong their planned life span. They can break any day. As such, MAVEN was planned as a replacement, for communicating with Curiosity in the years to come.
Now as MAVEN probably won't start until in 2 years, if the old satellites fail, curiosity is doomed and there would be no way for curiosity to send its data, pictures etc. from Mars to Earth anymore. Curiosity mission would be done.
So, in conclusion, 10s of years of scientific work and 2,5 billion US tax money (!) may be gone, just because of that Obamacare thing.
Good job, "tea party" guys. Well done.
Yeah don't think they like that science nonsense too much anyway...
|
Canada11363 Posts
On October 03 2013 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:03 Caladan wrote:
Just wanting to report a bit about the effects of the shutdown on NASA because I'm a space science fan and know a bit about it. If that does not interest you, don't bother reading.
The NASA is shut down (like 95% of workers are at home). This is especially severe for the MAVEN mission to Mars which was to launch in about a month. If the shutdown is not cancelled in the next few days, the time window for travelling to Mars will be over. There is a time window only every two years!
That means, the mission will probably be delayed by two years because of the shutdown.
But that is not the most severe problem. NASA's curiosity rover, the most expensive and advanced rover ever sent to Mars, just started its scientific work last year. It needs satellites for communicating with Earth. But the satellites it is using right now are very old and long beyong their planned life span. They can break any day. As such, MAVEN was planned as a replacement, for communicating with Curiosity in the years to come.
Now as MAVEN probably won't start until in 2 years, if the old satellites fail, curiosity is doomed and there would be no way for curiosity to send its data, pictures etc. from Mars to Earth anymore. Curiosity mission would be done.
So, in conclusion, 10s of years of scientific work and 2,5 billion US tax money (!) may be gone, just because of that Obamacare thing.
Good job, "tea party" guys. Well done. Yeah don't think they like that science nonsense too much anyway...
I think that is an unfair characterization. I suspect they would be 100% on board with Virgin's efforts to send spaceships up into orbit. Private money vs Public money rather than the science itself.
|
On October 03 2013 10:36 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2013 09:03 Caladan wrote:
Just wanting to report a bit about the effects of the shutdown on NASA because I'm a space science fan and know a bit about it. If that does not interest you, don't bother reading.
The NASA is shut down (like 95% of workers are at home). This is especially severe for the MAVEN mission to Mars which was to launch in about a month. If the shutdown is not cancelled in the next few days, the time window for travelling to Mars will be over. There is a time window only every two years!
That means, the mission will probably be delayed by two years because of the shutdown.
But that is not the most severe problem. NASA's curiosity rover, the most expensive and advanced rover ever sent to Mars, just started its scientific work last year. It needs satellites for communicating with Earth. But the satellites it is using right now are very old and long beyong their planned life span. They can break any day. As such, MAVEN was planned as a replacement, for communicating with Curiosity in the years to come.
Now as MAVEN probably won't start until in 2 years, if the old satellites fail, curiosity is doomed and there would be no way for curiosity to send its data, pictures etc. from Mars to Earth anymore. Curiosity mission would be done.
So, in conclusion, 10s of years of scientific work and 2,5 billion US tax money (!) may be gone, just because of that Obamacare thing.
Good job, "tea party" guys. Well done. Yeah don't think they like that science nonsense too much anyway... I think that is an unfair characterization. I suspect they would be 100% on board with Virgin's efforts to send spaceships up into orbit. Private money vs Public money rather than the science itself.
I think he was referring to homosexuality, evolution and climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
