Three words: Single-issue voters. There's a huge voter bloc that literally cares about only one issue, and overwhelmingly those issues are 1) gay marriage and 2) abortion, though not necessarily in that order.Originally Posted by Brooks Puuntai
Santorum can't win with single-issue voters, but the fact that he's running in second place tells you a lot about how many Americans vote this way.
I dunno, I am genuinely scared. What if all this contraception-hating, gay-hating, liberal-hating, everything-hating actually works, and they get into the White House? I know it seems impossible, but it's that sort of cockiness and nonchalance that brought us W. I thought there was NO WAY such an obviously stupid, 18th-century-retro-values Republican could win.God the general election is gonna be awesome.
I guess they technically don't hate *everything*... They seem to be cool with unborn babies (fuck 'em once they're born, of course) and hate itself.
Maybe he would assist the rapture by bringing about the apocalypse... and it might go a little something like this
[spoiler=Rick Santorum realizes he has the power to bring about the rapture] [/spoiler]
The reason GW won is because Al Gore and John Kerry were pathetic candidates. The entire problem with the democratic party and why it lost so many seats in the last mid-term election is because they are so left of center. I would vote for a Democrat if the right person ran but the Democrats are way out in left field these days.
My view anyhow.
I think it's fair to say both parties are very polarized these days.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
"In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Santorum is an idiot, but I think it's a little early to worry about the Inquisition 2.0. While I generally lean left I have to agree with Mr. Chomsky, in the US there is very little difference between a democrat and a republican vote. Unfortunately, having too forcibly remove a religious nut-job from office might be just what our country needs...
My personal issue with these primaries has been religion. Believe what you want to believe, whatever superstitions you want to personally hold, I'm all good with that as long as you don't start inflicting it on other people. No candidate has a mandate from God, for the same reason that I don't have a mandate from the Tooth Fairy.
I was thinking about it this morning in the context of the Tea Party. On the one hand, I totally support the idea of it. On the other hand, you have people waving the Constitution at us who've never bothered to read it. The Federalist Papers? They've never heard of it.
The bible's the same way. None of these morons have actually read it. They'll quote it, they'll pretend that it supports their agenda, but, again, they have no fucking clue what they're talking about. In both cases they're waving a document at you that they've neither read nor understood.
What is most striking is that it's pretty much the same group of people in both of these cases.
Oh I agree, but that is quite different than taking measure how far off center each party is.
Ugh, Chomsky. Of course this closet communist doesn't see much of a difference.
You have pretty skewed view of where center is, both in the US and in the world.
The problems had more to do with a lack of internal organization and leadership, ideology had nothing to do with it. They just couldn't decide what the message was so there was no way they were going to get it out.
Powerful reasoning you have there. Ad hominems aside, can you clarify the major differences between the two parties?
Their candidates attend the same schools, come from the same back grounds (rich), have ties to the same handful of powerful cooperations and generally support either Keynesian growth (with or without a coresponding social platform) or fiscal conservatism, and like the closet-communist said, they switch freely between the two as can easily be evidenced by history.
There's also no closet involved, he's very open about his fondness for socialism.
That doesn't mean I'm going to toss the rest of his thoughts out the window, though. He's a very smart guy, with some good ideas and some bad ideas.
No, it isn't. The left can't hold a candle to the radicalization the right has gone through since 2006.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
Look, I swing left too, but surely you must agree that both parties have gone their separate ways, to big extremes. Perhaps its just easier to point at the Republican extremism because well.. its pretty fucking extreme (from a social politics perspective). Lefties are too, but they're extreme with things like social programs, tax changes, etc.
Makes for less interesting headlines so we read about it less, doesn't mean its not there though. Democrats are just as guilty about using the Filibuster (god I hate that this still exists) and/or blocking legistlation.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing people that the American Left is "extreme" when the those same views are regarded as the center in most of Western world. As much as I prefer it not to happen if the US ends up like most of the EU I can live with that. The US turning into Saudi Arabia though, I can't just abide.
Heh, Ron Paul is totally a small-government dude. Totally.
Yes, he's in favor of state-mandated sonograms.
But other than that, he's all about small government.
Just happened to see this on the front page of Hulu, figured I'd share.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/342114/the...on-paul-part-2
I've spent a fair bit of time trying to understand this perspective. I just can't think of any issues that have been radicalized since 06'. Maybe you can give me an example?
If you're talking about rhetoric from right-wing talking heads and radio jocks I would agree with you up to a point. But I've only noticed that after Obama's first year in his term.
But as far as the political body that makes up the republican party and the right wing I can't think of any issues or policy changes that I would consider radical when compared to 5 years ago.
This type of comment is so odd and a bit frustrating to me. The US becoming a spitting image of the EU is very possible, you could even argue that it's probable. The US becoming something like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under Taliban rule isn't even remotely possible.
Things are either going to be as they are and/or were or they become more "liberal". That's the political reality in America IMO.
How can ideology have nothing to do with it. Republicans/Democrats aren't going to vote for the other guy just because he has a message and they're good at getting that message out. Irrelevant of what you or I think of one issue or another, that is what people vote on.
Also your reasoning plays into my reason as to why I think Kerry and Gore were such pathetic candidates. They had a crappy message, no vision, or a vision that was not espoused because they know it wouldn't get any support. They had no leadership and as nominees for their party that is their job. They had the biggest platform there is to get the message out there is in American politics. You can't blame the DNC and other Democrat organizations for failing to get the message out. It's the nominees job and you are excusing their failure rather than recognizing that I am correct about Kerry and Gore.
Especially Al Gore for Christ's sake! It should be clear to anybody by now that Al Gore is bat-shit crazy!(and not because he believes in climate change, I'm talking about his mannerisms and disposition)
What world is that? The Islamic world? The far East? Latin America? The center is different where ever you are. You can't compare the center in the US to anywhere else really.
Try getting elected without being openly christian. Even the science curriculum is politicized, for crying out loud.The US becoming something like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under Taliban rule isn't even remotely possible.
Religious control is this country is ridiculous, pretending otherwise is just naive. Railing on about religious fundamentalists in other countries is hypocritical in the extreme.
It saddens me that you can only win an election in this country if you're openly superstitious and anti-science.
Rationalism? Who needs it, we're AMERICA fer chrissake.
(yes, I'm vehemently agreeing with you)
Al was a good man, you'd be batshit crazy too if some hick fuck from texas literally cheated you out of the presidency.
So apparently Romney is an etch a sketch. Shake him around and you can start all over with a new set of values and campaign promises.
If you kill enough of them they stop fighting - Gen. Curtis Lemay
Fear the KKM
That was my point. It's difficult to convince people that the Left is equally as extreme as the Right because the "extreme" positions of the American left are already in practice within the EU. It's not about caring what the rest of the world thinks or does, it's about convincing Americans that they should vote for you because otherwise we'll end up like....Germany? Where as the other side can point to extreme examples of Theocratic influence in government and get a fairly energetic reaction to it. Basically it won't happen because people will see it coming and reject it almost out of hand. The challenge is in producing that same kind of reaction against Liberal policies and they don't have a "look at <shithole country here>" kind of example. The worst thing they point to is Canadians getting non-emergency procedures done in the US because they have enough money to do so and alluding to fiscal conservatism without any real plan to balance the budget on their own (aside from reducing taxes).
It's why we'll eventually see Romney put away his big ole basket of crazy if he wins the nomination. The American center isn't comfortable with a candidate who can beat someone like Santorum in Jesus-off.
Ahahahahaha America's left being extreme is one of the best jokes I've heard.
You don't even have a real communist party. Your left is pretty much the center-to-right everywhere else, and your moderate right is mostly insane, bigoted and self-serving... not to mention your loony-bin worthy (and very popular) extreme right.
Pretty much the whole political spectrum of the US is shifted one or even two steps to the right, when compared to the rest of the world.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/hChYV.png[/IMG]
"Every rifter counts friend" - VR
Jesus fucking christ. Blaming Palin for the APF is like blaming Obama for the New Deal. Neither of them had anything to do with these programs, except in executing their duties as they were legislated.
I don't like the left, or Obama (policy-wise, He seems OK-ish enough to have a beer with). I also don't much like the bible thumping right. My dislike of both has to do with their lack of tolerance for other people's rights to do what they want as long as it's not DIRECTLY harmful to others. I don't really want to give a fuck about whether Tom is fucking John's ass. I don't care if the religious schools don't offer abortion plans to their employees (which I think ought to be fixed by allowing insurance companies to offer ala carte). Someone wants to smoke pot? Let them! So long as they don't drive under the influence or something else that's a danger to others, then I couldn't care less.
I want a party that will reduce the size of government SLOWLY to avoid an economic hit. I want someone with a bit of an isolationist bent who won't involve us in wars that aren't causing us direct trouble or threatening to do so. If war is needed, I want a party committed to the annihilation of the enemy, not nation building. I want a party that encourages apathy (as in real, actual tolerance) about social issues. I'm OK with a very small safety net that's temporary to all but the invalid but life long government dole programs should be shut down. I want two parties that know the definition of the word compromise.
And, no. Libertarianism isn't that party. Maybe when they have some grown-ups running the shop they will be.
Romney/Paul 2012
The disconnect is because you are trying to focus on a particular issue. The issues haven't changed. Abortion with no exceptions, a wall between the US and Mexico, and all the other platform positions of the Right have been around. The change has been in the people awakening to the radical discourse. Someone cranked the Fear Mongering dial to 10 and broke it off.
It's not that people woke up one day and said, "the government is out to get us." They start listening to political commenters like Beck, read infowars, join the Tea Party Movement. People don't watch one show and say, "death to the fascists." Individuals pick up little pieces here and there from the repertoire of pre-made ideologies and fabricated news to build a new world-view. As they start to lend credence to this world-view, they continue to attend meetings and protests and get networked into the more of their bubbled world and find like-minded radicals. The Right has fueled this like no other, constantly sending out a paranoid message of the ‘mainstream’ being against them.
These continue to be a source of both ideological hardening and emotional elaboration which entrench the world-view and shape members into activists. Radicals find radicals and then seek converts both directly and indirectly. This emergence then causes the ideology to evolve both for participants and the collective. This is what has picked up speed on a seemingly exponential trajectory.
Since ’06, when the republicans began to lose control, more of these groups started to form and by ’08 they were on the ground running, whether it was Crossroads/Heritage Foundation, Tea Party groups, Oath Keepers, Beck's 9/12 groups, the John Birch Society, or Friends of Liberty. These groups pressured for pledges and lines in the sand, grinding compromise to a halt and, along with it, the legislative process.
It'll get worse before it gets better. Nothing mobilizes radicalism like political inefficacy.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
Several readers asked us about Republican comments and news reports saying that a new Congressional Budget Office report had found that the federal health care law would cost double the original estimate. But that’s not what CBO’s report said. Instead, the report shows that the gross yearly costs of the new health care law are likely to be 8.6 percent higher than originally estimated.
Let’s start with the truth. In a March 13 report, the CBO gave updated estimates for the cost of insurance coverage provisions of the law for the 2012-2021 period. It said the gross cost — not including revenue measures — would be slightly higher than it had estimated a year earlier, in March 2011. The latest estimate puts the cost at $1.496 trillion over that decade, up by about $50 billion, which is a 3.5 percent increase.
The latest estimate of year-by-year costs is also higher than what was originally estimated two years ago, when the bill was enacted. The latest estimate covers only eight of the years (2012 through 2019) that are in the original estimate. The total “gross” costs of that eight-year period are now estimated to be just over $1 trillion, or about 8.6 percent higher than originally projected.
But the CBO also projects that much of the new spending will be offset by penalties paid by employers who choose not to provide coverage to their workers, by penalties paid by individuals who opt not to obtain coverage, by taxing high-cost health plans and by other effects of the law’s coverage provisions. After accounting for these offsets, the “net” cost of the coverage provisions are now expected to be somewhat lower than projected two years ago. Comparing the eight years that are common to both estimates, the net cost is now predicted to be $772 billion, or about half a percent lower than originally estimated.Obamacare is actually saving cash for the feds.CBO has estimated that the law would reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period
http://factcheck.org/2012/03/gop-misrepresents-cbo/
http://www.politicususa.com/rick-san...ter-of-deceit/
Don't tell that to El Rushbo, the man has been ranting for a week now about how Obamacare costs double as much.
I've noticed that there's a pretty big disconnect between the general consensus of kugu and what's actually happening. It seems enough people have said it in this thread that people are taking it as fact.
The Tea Party, and all it represents:
Attachment 2706
Yeah I'm really quite uncertain what people mean by this as well. Our *culture* can reach some really nice, liberal highs but politically we're still either center or center-right. The very fact that states have laws against blow jobs and buying beer on Sunday because of Jesus/God/ignorance is just simple evidence of this.
Not nearly enough quotation marks, but I suppose I should be grateful that it doesn't say "VETERAN'S"
I guess they need bigger garbage cans so the flag can be properly stuffed into them.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...in-particular/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...-unreasonable/
Its always good to look at things from many perspectives.
Atheism is faith in the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
It baffles me that while spending most of their breath vilifying anyone who doesn't agree with them (atheists, gays, opposing religions, scientists, non-Fox News media) mainstream Christians can still have the audacity to teach that they are a persecuted minority. This country needs a non-religious, secular, scientifically minded voting block more than anything else at this point.
Of course, by gathering atheists and agnostics together we're only hastening the return of Christ, the fiery destruction of the world and eternal damnation of the unrighteous, not too mention we already have the literal Anti-Christ sitting upon his grand socialist throne. Such a beautiful hope...
Agnostics and Atheists aren't necessarily brothers in arms.
They're closer in worldview than Atheists and Christians.
Agnostics just worry about hurting ignorant people's feelings a little more. And yes I said ignorant, because the only excuse for believing the world is only 6,000 years old or that evolution is untrue, that a patriarchal family structure is the only moral one, that a cracker and a drip of wine magically turn into human flesh and blood upon entering the faithful's mouth, that prophecies written in caves by ancient ascetics and translated and re-translated by thousands of scribes over thousands of years decide the future of our entire world is purly and simply ignorance. There's no other word for it.
People think that Atheists are intolerant of other people's beliefs and maybe it is true to a point. I'm also intolerant of psychics, Bigfoot, crop circles, ancient aliens, miracle cures, Santa Claus, and liars in general.
Why is it that Christians spend most of their time being intolerant of everyone around them, then the second a group of people say: "Maybe we shouldn't let people like this make all the decisions in our country", the first thing Christians cry about is how intolerant these dissenters are being of their beliefs? As soon as someone tries to wrest control away from them it's wailing and moaning about a "loss of religious freedom" in this country. The last time I checked "religious freedom" included the freedom to be non-religious and the freedom to demand government and legislation that is equally non-religious. That's all the Reason Rally is, a group of non-believers (of all stripes) who are tired of being marginalized in this country.
Hold it there for a second. I understand that your own experiences imposeda certain bias on you, but you're really arguing very onesided here.
Not every Christian is a die-hard fundamentalist, that goes for both Catholics and Protestants, especially not in the "West". The Bible Belt luckily isn't even a representation for all of the US. You may argue about how faithful the people really are and why the are part of any religious group if they're not zealous believers, but that's a totally different - and at this point - irrelevant matter.
I'll give you though that religious (not just Christian) organisations and institutions are always very quick about to ask to be torerated but in return can be rather resistant to tolerate.
Edit: Also, as someone who used to call himself an Atheist in earlier years and has become an (admittingly hardliner) Agnostic, I can tell you that this had nothing to do with "worrying about [...] people's feelings a little bit more" now than I used to.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I'll admit I shouldn't speak for all Agnostics or all Christians, so apologies for implying that your worldview was as simplistic as "worrying about [...] people's feelings a little bit more". But, personally most of the agnostics I know (herein is probably my problem) seem to take the "well I don't know everything" humility route, usually biased by the fact that they have religious family members or persons of religious persuasion that they highly respect. I do myself.
I can respect admitting that you don't know something for definite, I don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God absolutely doesn't exist. I also don't know that there isn't a fine China cup spinning somewhere on the far side of Jupiter, or that little grey aliens haven't traveled mind-boggling distances just too ram probes up or asses and steal our cattle. Just because I can't eliminate something with absolute prejudice doesn't mean that the possibility of it existing is any more likely.
Unfortunately, being from the US and raised in a very conservative Christian household, when I say Christian it's usually in reference to Rick Santorum style fundamentalists, so too clarify I'll use that term in the future. But that being said, I still think ignorance is the correct term for anyone who refuses to accept the MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution, natural history and even biblical history that science has given us.
Personally as a Atheist/Agnostic(apparently to some Agnostic is the same thing) I despise Atheist groups. Mainly because they don't help the outlook people have on those who are Atheist, and make us look like we are anti-religious. Where as me personally I have no issues with religion in itself, I just don't believe in it. The only issue I do have is with what I consider religious fanatics like Santorum, who try to judge other based off of faith and force their will on others. Which oddly enough is actually against the teachings they follow. Also for the record I was raised Catholic and even went to a Catholic school up until high school.
[B]Join the hunt for Ransomlist! Help us find the Number One Kugu poster!
[URL="http://Join the hunt for Ransomlist! Help us find the Number One Kugu poster! http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?11270-RansomList-has-gone-AWOL"]http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?11270-RansomList-has-gone-AWOL[/URL][/B]
I have no issues with a person being religious, as long as that person has no issue with others exercising their own free will in turn. I do have problems with religion any time it enters the political sphere, which it is almost never absent from. The reason non-believers need to get together isn't to stamp out religion or burn churches. It is to form a voting block that can effectively counter religiously motivated legislation and misinformation like attempts to enforce obscenity laws, anti-abortion or suppression of real scientific education in our schools.
To not further derail this thread anymore, just a few words to your last paragraph. I'll respond in more detail via pm soon™.
I agree with your last definition on ignorance for that matter, but I shall again point out with emphasisthat this does not apply to the majority of Christians, certainly not in North America, Australia, and Europe.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
All religious/non religous folks just need to stop getting in a slapfight over who is better. Let the christian/muslim/scientologists feel superior about being gods/space aliens chosen people, and let atheists be superior about using logic to avoid waking up early sundays to appease the ego of an all powerful mystical being.
If you kill enough of them they stop fighting - Gen. Curtis Lemay
Fear the KKM
I have no issues with a person being liberal, as long as that person has no issue with others exercising their own free will in turn. I do have problems with liberalism any time it enters the political sphere, which it is almost never absent from. The reason non-liberals need to get together isn't to stamp out liberalism or burn the State. It is to form a voting block that can effectively counter liberal motivated legislation and misinformation like attempts to force everyone to buy health insurance (or pay for someone elses' health insurance), steal from some people and give the spoils to their political supporters, or force people to join a union in order to get a job.
I am sure liberals feel the same way about crazy right wingers who want to arm every man woman and child, outlaw contraception and sex education, and invade every country that has oil.
If you kill enough of them they stop fighting - Gen. Curtis Lemay
Fear the KKM
I have no issues with a person being conservative, as long as that person has no issue with others exercising their own free will in turn. I do have problems with conservatism any time it enters the political sphere, which it is almost never absent from. The reason non-conservatives need to get together isn't to stamp out conservatism or burn private sector. It is to form a voting block that can effectively counter conservative motivated legislation and misinformation like attempts to force everyone to accept religion in the public square (or pray to someone elses' god), steal from some people and give the spoils to their political supporters, or force people to sacrifice benefits to get a job.
I'm a moderate but you could literally say the same thing from the 'liberal' perspective.
However let us continue this decent into madness that is
When/if Mitt Romney seals the deal how well will he shift his focus from far right topics to more moderate topics of the general election?
Is there anything Rick and New can do to stop him?
What role will superpacs play in the general? With Obama and Mitt using them full force how long till webecause of all the political ads?
EDIT: My MS paint picture turned out pretty shitty but you get the idea.
I'm anti-religous. At least in the sense that I believe we would be better off without it
No, it's not ignorance. Faith is more or less defined by believing something in the face of, or in the absence of, evidence. That's the whole point of religious beliefs. If scientific evidence or reason was all it took to convince a creationist we'd be done by now. Ignorance is not understanding the statistics of the lottery, faith is believing you'll win no matter the odds stacked against you.
There have been over 5,000 confirmed "gods" that man has prayed to. According to most religions praying to the wrong one gives you a ticket on the bullet train to Hell.
Hope they feel lucky.
Spaceship friends don't let other spaceship friends madpost.
well then its a good thing no one that i know of is suggesting anything like that! :toot:
"I want you guys to be tolerant of my intolerance".
If you said the rest of the west that might be true, rest of the world hell no.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks