Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 1006 of 1485 (709328)
10-24-2013 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Jon
10-24-2013 5:57 PM


Re: Using liberal logic
petrophysics1 writes:
I supported the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS.
You did not.
The ONLY reason you could possibly have for not supporting his appointment is that he is black.
Therefore you are a racist and I am not.
Strange since I would consider myself part of the Tea Party movement.
Taq writes:
What I have always found ironic is that Obama is taking Republican policies and feeding them back to the Republicans. Obamacare is the Republican health care reform policy from the 1990's, including the individual mandate and health insurance exchanges. The only reason that I can think of is that Republicans really, really hate Obama for some irrational reason.
Jon writes:
Have you considered that the Republican party of today isn't the same as the Republican party of the 90s?
The Republican Party has embodied the backlash, defined by race and class, of the ancien regime for decades. They made their deal with the devil when they sought to peel off southern Democrats with their Civil Rights resentment-centered Southern Strategy.
Their fever dream of white protestant privilege assassinated our greatest hopes in the 60s and yearns to punish the nation for betraying them now.
Is the Tea Party racist?
Gee, as someone who failed to understand the subtleties of fascist attraction, I hesitate (just this long) to say: the Tea Party draws its peculiar venom from racism, whether the individual Tea Partier pleads ultimate motivation from fiscal prudence or Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Tea Partiers who swallow the explicit racist behavior and speech of TP activists in silence are like Log Cabin Republicans who bowed their heads to DOMA or suburban moms who vote for men who oppose the reproductive freedom those moms support.
You can say you supported Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.
You still have blood on your hands.
NB: OK, this Inactive thing isn't working.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Jon, posted 10-24-2013 5:57 PM Jon has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1015 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 1007 of 1485 (709331)
10-25-2013 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1005 by frako
10-24-2013 7:19 PM


Re:
LOL the European parliament has its whacoes too.
The European Parliament probably has more whackos than Congress, since some countries have such low turnout for European elections that this is where every fascist and nutjob too extreme to win in a national election goes to get elected. Their whackadoodle voters will still turn out in enough numbers to get them in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by frako, posted 10-24-2013 7:19 PM frako has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 1008 of 1485 (709335)
10-25-2013 6:17 AM


Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
I haven't gone through this thread (so maybe someone has answered my question).
I'm an outsider, so I don't know much about US politics.
My question is as follows:
Why doesn't the Tea Party put up candidates for election as Tea Party members, but instead run as Republicans?
To me the politics of persons such as John McCain and that Cruz guy are as far removed from each other as can be. Yet, they run for the same party? Scratch head.....

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by yenmor, posted 10-25-2013 6:25 AM Pressie has replied
 Message 1012 by caffeine, posted 10-25-2013 9:16 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 1013 by Theodoric, posted 10-25-2013 9:57 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 1014 by Diomedes, posted 10-25-2013 10:11 AM Pressie has not replied

  
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3646 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


Message 1009 of 1485 (709336)
10-25-2013 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Pressie
10-25-2013 6:17 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
They have been talking about it. Remember that they came into being when obama got elected. Thats not too long ago. They aint got the infrastructure to stand on their own yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2013 6:17 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1011 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2013 6:45 AM yenmor has not replied

  
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3646 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


Message 1010 of 1485 (709337)
10-25-2013 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Jon
10-24-2013 5:57 PM


Re: Using liberal logic
Um... I see people claim this a lot. It is simply not true. Boehner, for example, handed out checks from the tobacco companies on the floor. This was in the 90s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Jon, posted 10-24-2013 5:57 PM Jon has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 1011 of 1485 (709338)
10-25-2013 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1009 by yenmor
10-25-2013 6:25 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
Thanks yenmor.
To me it's a bit strange that a subsiduary of a political party in the biggest economy in the world can hold the economies of most of the rest of the world at ransom. Without being elected as the Tea Party. Have they no shame?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1009 by yenmor, posted 10-25-2013 6:25 AM yenmor has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1015 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 1012 of 1485 (709348)
10-25-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Pressie
10-25-2013 6:17 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
Why doesn't the Tea Party put up candidates for election as Tea Party members, but instead run as Republicans?
It's the structure of the American political and electoral system. It's a Presidential system, which means you have an important post that it is dished out on a zero-sum, winner-takes-all basis. Since they don't go in for instant run-off voting or a second round of voting as in some Presidential elections elsewhere, any third party serves primarily to split the vote, encouraging the creation of two broad, unwieldy electoral blocs - the Democrat and Republican parties.
This situation is exacerbated by elections to Congress which, for both houses, are done by single member constituencies - meaning more zero-sum contests on a smaller level. Other countries with such an election system manage to support smaller parties - usually ones with a strong regional basis - but all those I know of are Parliamentary systems where the President (or monarch) is a mere figurehead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2013 6:17 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1013 of 1485 (709356)
10-25-2013 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Pressie
10-25-2013 6:17 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
Political parties and elections are much different in the US system than they are in a parliamentary system. The Dems and Repubs have so much entrenched power it will be very difficult to raise the funds necessary to be effective on their own electorally.
That being said, some observers are talking about a potential schism in the Republican party. Being a fairly well informed political observer, I think this is possible. Not likely, but very possible. The internal roilings of the party are historically reminiscent of other party schism in the past.
If they do split, from the Republican Party, they are going to have to carry a fair amount of sitting reps and senators in order to have momentum to be effective. I find this the most unlikely part.(This was a prime reason for the failure of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive (Bull Moose) Party They will attract the reps and senators with the least seniority and the least power.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2013 6:17 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 1014 of 1485 (709362)
10-25-2013 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Pressie
10-25-2013 6:17 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
Why doesn't the Tea Party put up candidates for election as Tea Party members, but instead run as Republicans?
Other posters have provided some feedback on this, but allow me to also chime in:
The Tea Party, in its original guise, was a grass roots movement that was usurped by the Republican party after the 2008 election, where the Republicans were handed their butts on a platter. They were desperate to find a way to re-invigorate their base, and the Tea Party provided the perfect foil. The original Tea Party was actually an extension of the folks who opposed the Wall Street bailouts and were, to a large degree, Ron Paul supporters.
With the Tea Party enthusiasm, Republicans begin to leverage their outrage and vitriol to make waves and stoke a very anti-Obama style of rhetoric. The Affordable Healthcare Act also added fantastic cannon fodder. SuperPAC money began to fly towards Republican 'Tea Party' candidates and this enthusiasm allowed them to sweep in and take over Congress in 2010. While this mechanism worked well for the gerrymandered Congressional districts, it backfired at the Senate level which is more of a holistic state representation: as a result, they were unable to capture the Senate.
Fast forward to 2012; the anti-Obama rhetoric has reached fever pitch. With Republicans glued to Fox News and living in the anti-reality bubble, they were all but CERTAIN they would take back the presidency in 2012, retake the senate, and begin to move forward with their conservative 'agenda'.
However, facts and reality had other plans. Obama won in a sweeping victory. The Senate stayed in the hands of the Democrats and Republicans actually lost congressional seats.
What this loss actually did was begin to convince the already delusional Tea Party members that the reason they lost was that they were not putting candidates that were conservative enough to the forefront. This shocking disconnect from reality is now beginning to sink into the brains of various SuperPACs and the likes of Republican masterminds like Karl Rove. In essence, the beast has been created, has grown in size, is cognizant of its own power, and is now choosing to defy its master.
Ultimately, as long winded as this explanation is, the main reason the Tea Party has not branched off is that they actually consider themselves the 'true' Republicans. Hence terms like 'RINO' (Republican In Name Only) being tossed around. They are now using their influence (and results of gerrymandering) to attempt to 'take back' their Republican party. Its a schism that is becoming more and more difficult to deal with.
Sane Republicans (and they do exist, although most may not believe it), are now doing their best at damage control. They know that if the Tea Party keeps pushing to the right and refusing to play compromise politics, their chances of retaking the presidency, the senate or holding onto congress are getting slimmer and slimmer.
What you are starting to see now is the big money (Koch brothers, etc) start to distance themselves from the Tea Party members and start looking to back more moderate Republicans. Karl Rove has now started a new Political Action Committee that is going to attempt to undermine the efforts of the Tea Party.
How all this will play out, only time will tell. What is fascinating from a political perspective is that for the first time in my working memory, the Democrats are the party of unified thought and purpose and the Republicans are the party of schizophrenia. It actually used to be the other way around. Not that the Dems had that level of craziness, but they had a tendency to bicker more internally. Even Nancy Pelosi commented on that. But at this point, I think they see their end game more clearly on the Dem side. The will have a two term Obama presidency, they have a great potential candidate in Hillary for 2016 and they are looking at a Republican party that is fractured internally. My suspicion is they are going to be far more tactical then they were in the past to maximize their political potential in the coming elections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2013 6:17 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1015 by jar, posted 10-25-2013 10:27 AM Diomedes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1015 of 1485 (709363)
10-25-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1014 by Diomedes
10-25-2013 10:11 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
Just a side bet.
Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro.
And then:
Cuban Cigars make a comeback.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by Diomedes, posted 10-25-2013 10:11 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1016 by Diomedes, posted 10-25-2013 10:37 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 1016 of 1485 (709364)
10-25-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1015 by jar
10-25-2013 10:27 AM


Re: Why isn't there a Tea Party standing in elections? form
Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro.
And then:
Cuban Cigars make a comeback.
Wouldn't that be the ultimate celebratory F U? Imagine Hillary winning in 2016, a relaxation of the embargo against Cuba, and Dems walking around with stogies celebrating their victory. Hannity's head would probably explode.
Incidentally, keep an eye on Cory Booker from New Jersey. I am certain he is being groomed for a potential run at the presidency in years to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by jar, posted 10-25-2013 10:27 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1029 by ramoss, posted 10-25-2013 11:26 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1017 of 1485 (709365)
10-25-2013 10:57 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 1022 by AZPaul3, posted 10-25-2013 2:19 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1018 of 1485 (709370)
10-25-2013 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 954 by Omnivorous
10-12-2013 5:46 PM


So, we got informed of the changes to our health insurance here at work. I'm paying a little more per week now, the co-pay went up a little, and the percentages that they pay went down.
I am literally paying more money for less insurance.
One of the problems I have with you lefties is that the wonderful things that you tell me that your policies are going to result in don't actually happen to me in real life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 954 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2013 5:46 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1020 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2013 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1021 by AZPaul3, posted 10-25-2013 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1025 by Taq, posted 10-25-2013 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1032 by petrophysics1, posted 10-26-2013 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1033 by ringo, posted 10-26-2013 1:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1034 by ramoss, posted 10-26-2013 1:33 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1040 by onifre, posted 10-27-2013 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1041 by yenmor, posted 10-27-2013 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


(2)
Message 1019 of 1485 (709371)
10-25-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1003 by Taq
10-24-2013 3:25 PM


Re: Using liberal logic
The only reason that I can think of is that Republicans really, really hate Obama for some irrational reason.
That's absolutely true. No question.
The issue is that there is more than one source of irrational opposition. One is racism, sure. But another (and there are more) is self-identifying with a faction in opposition to another faction.
If I identify with teh Red team, and you identify with the Blue team, each of us will be likely to defend any arguments from our own side (whether we would, in other circumstances, agree with those positions or not), and argue against and positions from the opposition. Very often these arguments can be exceedingly irrational.
You can see some of this behavior in violent soccer hooligans.
There have been studies on the matter as well. In one such study, two groups of boys were sent camping in a park, each unaware of the other group. The idea was that the researchers would perform various attempts to make the boys develop some sort of aggression or opposition toward each other.
Becoming aware of each other proved to be more than sufficient.
Each group of boys spontaneously developed their own group names, and began to form group mannerisms (accents, one group determined they were "proper," and the other would swear and considered themselves "tough," and so on) that they did not exhibit before becoming aware of the other group.
Politics is no different. The pressure to conform is far more insidious than school-day lessons on "peer pressure" represented. None of us, including those of us who consider ourselves independent and try to address issues on an individual basis on their own merits, are still subject to these tribalistic influences.
I think the real source of the Tea Party's irrational opposition to Obama (not to be confused with some very legitimate complaints one could make about his administration, some of which are in fact made by the Tea Party as well) stems from more than one place. There is racism, there is ignorance, there are honest false beliefs, there is religious anti-Muslim bigotry stemming from a subset of those false beliefs, and there is simple "the other guy is Bad" tribalism all at work simultaneously.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1003 by Taq, posted 10-24-2013 3:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


(2)
Message 1020 of 1485 (709383)
10-25-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1018 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2013 11:35 AM


So, we got informed of the changes to our health insurance here at work. I'm paying a little more per week now, the co-pay went up a little, and the percentages that they pay went down.
I am literally paying more money for less insurance.
That's happened to me every year for quite a while now.
One of the problems I have with you lefties is that the wonderful things that you tell me that your policies are going to result in don't actually happen to me in real life.
I think it's a little early to be judging the effectiveness of the ACA - not one person actually has a health plan from teh exchanges yet, for one thing.
But please remember that the ACA has more objectives than merely lowering your premiums and copays.
More important than lowering the costs for people who already have insurance is eliminating the ability of insurers to deny coverage or charge increased prices for those with pre-existing conditions, as well as getting millions of uninsured Americans insured so that we can benefit from normal medical care instead of having the uninsured wait until they need the emergency room.
Even when it comes to health care increases, I dont think anyone has actually said that we expect premiums and copays to go down for those who already have insurance. Rather, the objective is to make group plans available apart from employment so that individuals can receive the cost benefits of group plans even when their employers don;t offer them. An individual contractor, for example, or an employee at a very small business, might have had to pay hundreds more per month for an individual plan than what they can get now with an ACA-generated exchange plan.
Your single anecdote doesn;t seem to me a broken promise or indeed unexpected. I'd hope that over time the yearly cost increases will slow down, and possibly we might see cost decreases in the long term, but I think it's exceedingly unreasonable to expect to get a personal benefit today, particularly as, since you're receiving healthcare from your employer, you aren't who the ACA is targeted at in the first place.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2013 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1026 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2013 3:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024