Playing the Role of Spoiler for Four More Years - Conservatives/Republicans ITT

Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by Moxin24, Mar 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ohhaithur e-Batman

    Just want to point out that three months later this comment helped change my life. Not saying that sarcastically either. One of my personal goals for years has been to put myself in other people's shoes, but seriously, honestly this comment really helped me along with that. Been of great help to my personal life too in many ways.

    Thanks, Mox.
    ths likes this.
  2. Can I Spliff it Yes you can

  3. ths so far gone

    Empathy is the most important human trait.
    Talking Head and ohhaithur like this.
  4. ohhaithur e-Batman

    Weird thing is his comment wasn't really in reference to what I meant. I just meant that abortion shouldn't be an issue because it won't be settled, but for some reason the reply clicked for me. I've even used almost his exact wording in discussions about abortion since in real life.
  5. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    Whores....gotta love em :awesomeface:
  6. Can I Spliff it Yes you can

    Newt's fan songs would be played by GWAR
  7. slogan119 Her?

    The same could be asked of liberals. When many countries in Europe are moving towards a private/public system to contain costs, we're moving towards a public system to try to contain costs - when it's been proven not to work.

    Why are we ignoring the obvious, at a time when our half of annual spending is borrowed?
  8. slogan119 Her?

    The song Newt uses is the same one that IASIP used for the wrestling episode when the guys came out in their eagle costumes. :twocents:
  9. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    Which countries are those?

    And, "it's proven not to work" - no, no it hasn't been.
  10. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    don't ever disparage GWAR like that again
  11. slogan119 Her?

    Off the top of my head, I know it's a northern Euro country (I want to say Denmark) and another Asian country, while several Euro countries are exploring the possibility due to the economic climate. It will be based on income, similar to the private health insurance/Medicaid system here, but with higher earning requirements for the public portion.

    Let me rephrase - it's been proven not to work economically.
  12. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    Even with the rephrase, which I'm not sure really changed anything, it's just not true. There are just so many variables involved that it's virtually impossible to come to anything resembling a convincing conclusion. As much as I'd like the U.S.'s healthcare system to look like Sweden's, the differences in cultural attitudes alone are enough to tell me that theirs would never work for us.
  13. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    One thing that is confusing to me, though, is the fact that we pay somewhere close to double what the other industrialized countries pay in order to achieve comparatively low lifespans per capita (not to mention embarrassing infant mortality rates), and yet apparently that's closer to the model that's been proven to work economically than the models that have citizens paying half as much per capita for notably better aggregate results. Sweden, Germany, and Japan are quite solvent economically, the last time I checked, also.
  14. Hank Scorpio Globex Corporation, Philanthropist, Supervillain

    Figured this would be as good a place as any to ask... does anyone know of a good book or other resource that goes through the history of both parties? I'm looking for something that explains what shaped the parties to how they are today. I'm really interested in how the parties developed their stances on social issues. Like why is the Republican party, which is fundamentally for small government, so big government on social issues like legislating against abortion, same sex marriage, continuing the Patriot Act, etc.? Conversely, what caused the big government Democrats to take a live and let live approach to social issues? Another topic I want to learn more about (which I'm sure is related in a big way) is what caused the religious right to take such a prominent role in the Republican party? Has it always been that way or was there a time when the religious sect of America was more divided?
  15. slogan119 Her?

    Due to our nation's "riches," we subsidize much of the technological advances in medicine. Additionally, Sweden, Germany, and Japan also have different taxation systems, which make the amount paid per capita closer to what we pay than you realize, but payouts to providers are much lower. In other words, the government is the "for-profit" entity as opposed to an insurance carrier.
  16. Moxin24 Ukrane is game to you?

    My intellectual and social development was helped tremendously by going to a school where 97% of the students disagreed with my political beliefs. I developed a great deal of respect for people who had deeply held convictions that were contrary to mine. Something I learned is that the vast majority of people of every political stripe have essentially the same goals, they just differ on how to best achieve them. When people approach issues with that in mind, and genuinely want to solve problems, a lot can get done.
    Now that doesn't usually translate well to our discussions here because for as much as we "talk" to each other we don't know one another so its easy to dismiss out of hand a position you disagree with. Its much more difficult to do that when you actually know the person you're debating. A large group of people I went to school with came to understand my conservationism didn't come from a cold and ruthless place and I came to admire, and almost envy, their idealism.
    There will always be issues that are so important (like abortion) you won't change someone's mind, but its a lot easier to accept their position when you understand it comes from a good place.
    Gator_n_Korea, tne, ohhaithur and 2 others like this.
  17. Moxin24 Ukrane is game to you?

    If you're looking for a comprehensive book for all that your best bet is a college textbook. Any mid-level poli sci course will discuss party formation, realignment and coalitions.
    A good place to start is Johnson's Great Society programs which solidified the black vote for the Democrats and Nixon's Southern Strategy that won the vote of disaffected whites.
  18. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    As a follow up to this, look at the coverage of the Democratic Party in the 1930s under FDR. He begins the wholesale move of the Democratic Party into what gets called "big government" and his programs under the New Deal is where you see the shifts of minorities as strong Democratic voters.

    There are several good books that look at the conservative movement in the late 1960s / early 1970s that look at the social conservative side which look at once fairly dormant non-political side of the country that awakens and becomes active politically based on what they see as attacks from the left (Roe v. Wade and other cases during this period). I have one on my desk and when I go in this evening for class I will add the title here.
  19. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    Okay, let's say the amount is closer than I realize. They're still getting significantly better aggregate results than we are. The explanation for that is unclear, but that fact really isn't up for dispute at all.

    Anyway, government subsidization of R&D is one of the cultural things I was talking about. There are others. The fact that (and I have no explanation for this) Americans are like obsessed with cheap food. We demand it. I don't mean fast food, but that we spend as a % of our income substantially less than most, if not all, of the other countries in the industrial West (I don't know what Asia looks like in this case). Shockingly, this cheap food typically makes you fat as fuck and unhealthy. There's also a cultural element in Germany and Sweden, probably others that I'm not aware of for sure, that's like a paranoia about paying too little tax for services received. I mean, when was the last time anyone in our so-called political mainstream said something along the lines of "I'm afraid that we're paying far too little in taxes" and stayed relevant? The fact that we live sedentary lifestyles due in large part to the kinds of jobs and hours Americans typically work is like a multiplier on it all. There are tons of others.

    The point is that the notion that one model or another has been proven to work or not work is just patently not true because of the dozens of variables that go into it. This stuff isn't rocket science. Yeah, there are complexities like anything else, but the topic is treated like American fat people treat weight loss: like there's some kind of secret voodoo diet that just hasn't been discovered or fine tuned enough yet.

  20. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    The following article is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics on both sides right now.

    So on the left:

    "If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't spoken to President Obama in nearly two years.
    Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1976, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President."

    When you're considered a moderate member of your party, the bolded part is a huge failure on the part of a President who is from the opposite party.

    She nails it here as well:
    So has this Congress failed the country on those critical questions?
    "Absolutely," Snowe asserted. "You have to sit down and talk to people with whom you disagree," said Snowe. " And that is not what is transpiring at a time when we desperately need that type of leadership."

    When you look at political scientist evaluations of Congress and how it functions, they point to both Republicans and Democrats during the Bush years when both sides had different points when they decided to sabotage or ignore the other party. During Obama's time, Congress has only gotten worse from both sides. During the first 2 years, the Democrats felt they didn't need to concede anything to the Republicans because they "had sizable majorities" and only needed to negotiate with themselves mostly (see health care, cap and trade, etc.). The Republicans in turn played the "fine we'll take our ball and go home" routine. Then after 2010, the Republicans take back over the House and decide they want to work again and the Democrats in the Senate decide they want basically stop everything. The Republicans in the Senate haven't been much better. Eventually, both sides need to either stop and decide we need to do our damn jobs or realize the institution is functionally broken and both are to blame.

    Finally, the last thing that just made my head spin was the comments on this article. And yeah, I know reading these comments is very much like reading YouTube comments but the amount of idiocy among "conservatives" and what is really "conservative" or "Republican" just makes me :blowup: The very fact that we call Snowe a "liberal" Republican or "moderate" Republican today is just sad. She's not a social conservative like we see in the Deep South but he's a clue not many are outside of the Deep South (at least not in those concentrations). Same thing with using the term RINO, I fucking hate that shit with every fiber of my being. It's one of the most useless, overused and incorrectly used terms in the political lexicon. There is nothing RINO about her or anyone else they use the term for and if they actually understood what the Party was suppose to do they would see how stupid that term really is.

    Oh and I want to look them straight in the eye and I want to them them what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snack-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-heaeded sack of monkey shit they are! Hallelujah! Holy Shit! Where's the Tylenol?

    Talking Head likes this.
  21. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    To that end, I saw Arlen Specter on some C-Span show like yesterday or the day before plugging his newest book, but he mostly was talking about the dynamics of recent Senates. Basically he said that both sides still engage pretty freely with one another on a personal level for the most part right off the Senate floor in these rooms, I can't remember for the life of me what he called them, where basically they sit and talk casually while drinking coffee or whatever (he said C-Span should stick cameras in there instead of the Senate floor because you don't really get anything from the floor). But basically they feel so hamstrung into voting essentially party-line that they would tell him openly that they actually agreed with his position, despite voting the other way, but they were afraid of being primary'd or whatever else, and that most are basically just trying to wait out this period.
  22. Talking Head The Bag Man.

    I bet those two have some simply delicious 1970's style bushes going on down there. :eatit:
  23. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    Yeah another big problem that some who have studied this is most don't live in DC outside of 4 days a week. They spend their weekends largely back in their State/District. This has significantly cut down on their socializing time they use to have and it has made it where they don't know each other as well. Similar to what Moxin wrote above, its real easy to call someone an asshole when you don't know them. However, when you go out and get beers and dinner together, your discourse tends to be a bit more civil because you know that the other person isn't an asshole and just has a different take on the issue.
    Talking Head and Joe_Pesci like this.
  24. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    There was all sorts of liberal joy yesterday at the Suffolk poll out yesterday that showed Obama with 10% and higher leads on all GOP candidates. The first problem is the inability to look at a series of polls and see a potential outlier. The other problem is Suffolk gave the option of Obama / Named GOP candidate / Unnamed 3rd Party / Undecided / Refused. That is a really bad wording when you're looking at measuring head to head races.

    So this morning there is a Marist Poll out that shows the race at 2% (48-46 Obama) and they're screaming that it's a media conspiracy to "change the narrative from Obama's big lead." :facepalm: :loldog:

    As I've said a few times before, looking at any of the polls of Obama vs. any GOP candidate's right now is basically a waste because there is too much movement in the electorate with the GOP nomination still not decided and also getting an accurate "likely voter" model is still a few months away.
  25. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    Not to mention that, you know, there's kind of an important thing before the Supreme Court right now
  26. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    which makes me wonder, if the healthcare bill gets struck down, is that a net gain or loss for Romney?
  27. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    Details man. Don't confuse them with details. The idiocy of the conservative position of "there is no way we can lose to Obama because everyone hates him" and the liberal position "there is no way we can lose because the Republicans are nothing but idiots" just makes me chuckle. At this point in time in 1992, George HW Bush was basically assured reelection and we see how things changed in a matter of months. There are far too many moving pieces to definitively say anything is certain at this point. Nate Silver had a really good article out yesterday on forecasting Presidential elections with economic and fundamentals models and how incredibly inaccurate they've been.
  28. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    I've got to see it as a gain because it will be a huge drag on Obama. Romney can always default back to "hey we did it as a State and they did it as the entire nation" pitch or "what's good for one state isn't necessarily good for the entire country."

    If Obama's one main domestic gain gets struck down at the same time the economy is still basically stumbling or slightly slipping, you're going to hear a lot of "but hey I killed UBL!!" comments. I don't see that particularly effective in this election cycle.
  29. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    I love Nate Silver. I also watched another Book TV segment (clearly I've been watching a lot of C-Span) with the authors of a book called We're with Nobody, which is written by two guys who have been doing opposition research together for like 15-20 years. They said that, in their experiences at least, there's really no formula or hierarchy for the stuff that actually gains enough traction with voters to sway an election. Well, domestic violence was pretty much the only thing they said was like a sure campaign killer, but beyond that it's basically a crap shoot. Maybe that Fast & Furious thing blows up, maybe some picture of college-aged Obama reading the Communist Manifesto shows up, maybe it's something as simple as Romney's business background looking more attractive to the big dollar finance donors.
  30. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    Yeah there are tons of variables and figuring out which one is actually the causal mechanism is virtually impossible from a predictive fashion. I've been reading Nate's stuff for several years now. His commentary is definitely left leaning when he's just talking politics but when he's talking stats, there isn't many I would trust more than him. He's really good at what he does and he's transparent with all of his models / data which adds confidence in what he's doing. He's one of the few that read frequently. Along with a series of pollsters (PPP, Gallup, Pew, etc), I have his tweets coming straight to my phone as texts. /political science nerd post
    Joe_Pesci likes this.
  31. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

  32. slogan119 Her?

    Santorum seems to be hell-bent on stopping Romney at any cost, and it seems he's burning a lot of establishment bridges in his quest. If/when he doesn't get the nomination, he's not going to have much of a future within the party (my opinion).

    I get the feeling he's shooting for something outside of politics, or at least elected office, something along the lines of a high-priced consultant to the religious right.
    Joe_Pesci likes this.
  33. Joe_Pesci Ducks, Cowboys, Blazers

    I think you're right. IIRC he's already done the lobbyist gig, albeit right when he got out of law school, as (I shit you not) an attorney for the then-World Wrestling Federation. He's obviously a smart guy, like most demagogues, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was angling to end up as some kind of king-maker. The talk radio sphere fucking loves him, so worst case he ends up as a "Fox News contributor" for awhile.

    lol here's the article
    slogan119 likes this.
  34. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

  35. slogan119 Her?

  36. Moxin24 Ukrane is game to you?

    I'd be all for Gingrich getting out if it meant Santorum could win enough support to force a brokered convention, but I saw a poll last week that said the majority of Gingrich's supports have Romney has their second choice.
  37. Can I Spliff it Yes you can

    What we need is Santorum
    Talking Head, ugafish and killerwvu like this.
  38. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    Yeah the CNN poll is the latest to show that. Little Ricky's recent comments have turned off some potential support by saying Obama would be better than Romney.
  39. slogan119 Her?

    As entertaining as a brokered convention would be, I prefer Romney over the unknown clusterfuck - let the Dems do something absurd like that. While I would prefer (most likely) a Christie, a Rubio, or a Daniels, I'll take Romney at this point and let the chips fall where they may.
  40. Moxin24 Ukrane is game to you?

    Fuck that. That fucking party has put me through all this shit they least they can do is satisfy the political nerd in me. And the candidates that would be possibilities in a brokered convention, Daniels, Bush, Christie, Ryan, would all be preferable to Romney.
  41. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    Yeah while I think there is a slim potential (depending on a bunch of different variables) a Romney nomination can beat Obama. I'm pretty positive that a brokered convention would just hand Obama reelection and potentially kill one of the future candidates for 2016 and beyond. Plus, I don't see any of the preferred candidates stepping up to run at a brokered convention. There is a reason why they turned it down before. Those reasons really haven't changed.
  42. Moxin24 Ukrane is game to you?

    The reason Ryan said he didn't run is because he didn't want to dedicate a year (or more) of his life to campaigning. That would absolutely be solved by getting the nomination at the convention.
  43. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    And he would get destroyed this late in the game and kill any chance at future runs.
  44. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    A few book recommendations:

    Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America)

    Political Philosophies in Moral Conflict

    These two look more at how the American voter makes decisions on why the vote certain ways and what they do or don't know in politics.

    Controversies in Voting Behavior

    The American Voter
  45. Rasheed Wallace Ball Don't Lie

  46. hogfan My beard is better than your beard

    The Suburban Warriors book gets at this issue. The answer is they weren't overly political or engaged until the 60s / early 70s. It was their reaction to what they deemed a liberal Supreme Court attacking their values (Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, etc.)
  47. VoodooChild5 Fan of: Notre Dame

    Read Suburban Warriors a few years ago for a class. Of course, once the final was over I forgot everything about the book.
  48. ths so far gone

    lol did you guys see santorum tell that report him distorting his words was "bullshit"?
  49. killerwvu Restoring WVU's E-Rep 1 Post At A Time

    explain please

    have not seen or heard about this
  50. ths so far gone

    santorum made a speech talking about how romney is the worst republican candidate to elect against obama on the matter of healthcare, because of his history with the subject. the reporter then asked about santorum calling romney "the worst republican in the country"

    :facepalm: immediately. fucking horrid journalism.

    anyway, this was his response. put santorum from a "will never get my vote" to a "will never get my vote but he made me laugh that one time"

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)