i saw today in a poll on Fox news Sunday that Trump was leading possible 2012 GOP candidates.
he's pushing the laughable and disproven notion that President Obama wasn't born in the USA. and he's
leading? so, how far do you think he can stay on that bandwagon and be considered viable? or did he already
doom himself?
Primary voters are very different from Presidential voters (they tend to be both more extreme, and less variant across the pertinent set). Both parties contend with this fact every election, but it may prove especially problematic for the GOP this cycle due to the high level of polarization in the party.
dogma wrote:Primary voters are very different from Presidential voters (they tend to be both more extreme, and less variant across the pertinent set). Both parties contend with this fact every election, but it may prove especially problematic for the GOP this cycle due to the high level of polarization in the party.
The Birther movement seems to me to be an issue that even divides Primary voters. it still floors me Trump embraces it so strongly.
The GOP candidates recently sometimes seem to be like the lineup for a vegas "where-are-they-now" show combined with people who could do really well on daytime "talk"shows or reality TV or gameshows. Maybe they'll nominate the winner of American Idol or maybe a UFC champion or Nascar personality next with Bristol Palin or Sylvester Stalone as a running mate. It's sad when so many of their senators and a few of their representatives (the ones that don't quote song lyrics to make a point when they have the floor of the house for their alotted minutes) are not nearly such clownish personas. Why do their potential presidential candidates seem to be like a bad joke unless you happen to think behavior on Survivor is a good method of judging character? Attention wal mart shoppers...
Most politicians tend to take extreme positions during the primary to appeal to their base. Everyone does it, heck, just look at the '08 elections. All the Democrats were trying to outdo one other on their anti-war bona fides, while the Republicans were playing up the social conservatism.
I don't care at all about the birther issue, but I think it would be nice to see some of Obama's grades and college records, like other presidents have released. Although he probably hasn't released them because it would probably cast a shadow on the "smartest president evah" meme.
edit: I do think it's a mistake for Trump to focus on the birther issue, I don't think Republican primary voters care about it that much.
biccat wrote:Most politicians tend to take extreme positions during the primary to appeal to their base. Everyone does it, heck, just look at the '08 elections. All the Democrats were trying to outdo one other on their anti-war bona fides, while the Republicans were playing up the social conservatism.
I don't care at all about the birther issue, but I think it would be nice to see some of Obama's grades and college records, like other presidents have released. Although he probably hasn't released them because it would probably cast a shadow on the "smartest president evah" meme.
edit: I do think it's a mistake for Trump to focus on the birther issue, I don't think Republican primary voters care about it that much.
but to nitpick any president with such inane things as old grades makes no sense. with all that's going on here and abroad just seems stupid.
and that was kind of what i was getting at. not that many people care about it, let alone believe it.
alarmingrick wrote:but to nitpick any president with such inane things as old grades makes no sense. with all that's going on here and abroad just seems stupid.
Given the prevalence of the "Bush was an idiot and Obama is smart" meme, I think that it would be an interesting comparison.
Gore, Bush, and Kerry all released their non-political records, so I don't understand why Obama hasn't released his. Unless there's something in there he doesn't want released that might tarnish people's opinion of him (for example, a few C's or F's his first year at Occidental).
alarmingrick wrote:and that was kind of what i was getting at. not that many people care about it, let alone believe it.
I agree that not that many people believe the "birther" crap, probably not even a majority of primary voters would vote for someone solely on that issue. But Trump seems to be bringing more to the table, and it appears that he has made a decision that he will gain more votes than he would lose.
Were I to vote in the primary, I don't think that I would be swayed one way or another on the birther issue. It's hardly something Trump would push for if he were elected president.
Although it dose raise a very interesting issue: how do you deal with a president who serves a term, but never met the Constitutional requirements to be President? Would we treat it like the House/Senate members who were too young and just sweep the whole thing under the rug, or would it affect any legislation that he signed into law?
I think, ultimately, Trump realizes (if he's actually serious about running) that he needs to stand on a gimmick in order to make up for all his other political shortcomings (once was a major contributor to the Democrats, persona derived as much from television as business, and a lack of personal charisma, among other things).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Given the prevalence of the "Bush was an idiot and Obama is smart" meme, I think that it would be an interesting comparison.
Gore, Bush, and Kerry all released their non-political records, so I don't understand why Obama hasn't released his. Unless there's something in there he doesn't want released that might tarnish people's opinion of him (for example, a few C's or F's his first year at Occidental).
Considering that he was able to transfer to Columbia, I suspect that isn't the case.
dogma wrote:I think, ultimately, Trump realizes (if he's actually serious about running) that he needs to stand on a gimmick in order to make up for all his other political shortcomings (once was a major contributor to the Democrats, persona derived as much from television as business, and a lack of personal charisma, among other things).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Given the prevalence of the "Bush was an idiot and Obama is smart" meme, I think that it would be an interesting comparison.
Gore, Bush, and Kerry all released their non-political records, so I don't understand why Obama hasn't released his. Unless there's something in there he doesn't want released that might tarnish people's opinion of him (for example, a few C's or F's his first year at Occidental).
Considering that he was able to transfer to Columbia, I suspect that isn't the case.
Well, he also failed to graduate Colombia with honors, yet somehow made it into Harvard.
I have a feeling that his success is more based on his charisma and speaking talent than intellectual prowess.
If what you're saying is true, there's no reason not to release the grades. Of course, now I'm sounding like a birther. Anyway, I find his refusal curious rather than indicting.
In my educational experience, grades meant being good at studying for a test, and I know plenty of extremely intelligent and knowledgable people who were mediocre students. I see plenty of very ignorant high schoolers getting straight As or close to it due to lowered standards.
I don't think good grades can really be taken seriously any more as an indicator of being intelligent (or even educated) given the skewed method of grading being different not only from one school to the next, but from one teacher to the next within the same school.
I am acquainted with two quite average people, not any more knowledgable about modern affairs than your daily news headline watcher, who either have or are working on masters degrees, one of whom works at a comic book store setting up displays and manning a cash register. I know a PhD currently trying to make a living as a writer, and a high school dropout who makes over $100,000 a year with his own business.
So sure, jump through your hoops kids, it will fool the human resources paperworkers that you are intelligent when you apply to become one of them, so surely it can fool the masses for cases like Dubya.
I don't really care either way, I think trump will fail. My question is why hasn't the issue been put to bed once and for all. It shouldn't be so difficult to just get the tea party to shut up about this with some concrete proof. Is there a strategy that makes sense not to just put it to bed already?
A trump ticket would be an auto win for Obama. I'm all for it. The GOP candidates this year are all pulled straight out of the loony bin, so it fits that the biggest and craziest would lead them.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't really care either way, I think trump will fail. My question is why hasn't the issue been put to bed once and for all. It shouldn't be so difficult to just get the tea party to shut up about this with some concrete proof. Is there a strategy that makes sense not to just put it to bed already?
They have a habit of moving the goal post, and also being totally insane. So Obama shows his birth certificate, and they bitch because its the short form certificate, or not the original (IE, the only one the state of Hawaii will release, the originals are kept by the state there) or my absolute favorite, that it says 'certificate of live birth' (both my long form and my short form say the same).
The governor of Hawaii (a republican) even personally viewed his original certificate to try and make the birthers happy, got nothing. On top of allll the birth certificate evidence, his birth was actually announced in the local paper, and they *still* won't shut up.
The funniest part is that being born in Kenya wouldn't even stop him from being president. His mom's an American, so under US law he's an American too (nothing says being born here is the *only* way to be a natural born citizen).
Nope, total myth. He has to be a 'natural born citizen' or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
Now, its true that one of the Civil war amendments (14th I think) made it so that anybody who is born in the US is a natural born citizen, but this isn't restrictive. Congress can declare that everybody born with a birthmark on their ass is a citizen if they want.
biccat wrote:
Well, he also failed to graduate Colombia with honors, yet somehow made it into Harvard.
Honors graduation isn't a good predictor of being accepted into an Ivy. In general you need solid academic credentials, and a compelling application; honors can be a part of that narrative, but it can't be the whole of it. After all, there a re plenty of schools that are the equivalent of the Ivies in terms of respect within the Academy, especially if you're talking about specific departments. For example Ohio State and Michigan are generally though to have Political Science departments that are superior to the one at Harvard due to a heavier emphasis on quantitative methods.
biccat wrote:
If what you're saying is true, there's no reason not to release the grades. Of course, now I'm sounding like a birther. Anyway, I find his refusal curious rather than indicting.
It may be that his staff feels that releasing his grades without solicitation would be regarded as a direct play to the "I'm smarter than Bush" meme, and therefore be taken negatively.
The fact that people are still questioning whether Obama is an American or not goes to highlight the flaw of democracy, that even stupid people are allowed to vote.
And if Donald does run then this will highlight the second flaw, may the richest man win.
Thing is, the Republicans kind of assumed the damage to their brand was fixed with the good results in the 2010 elections. But they didn't really think it through, because the 2010 results were the product of a protest movement against the Democrats (and, weirdly, against the Republicans as well).
The core message of movement conservatism is still strong, still incredibly strong, and so there's still plenty of voters out there. They want to vote for pro-business people who want small government, just that a whole lot of them get pretty sceptical about any Republican who claims to believe in those things. And who can blame them, Republicans have been talking about that stuff for three decades and doing the exact opposite. It seems the voters are finally catching on.
So the time is right for a guy who can embody the message of conservatism, without any of the baggage of the Repubilcan party. The time is right for a self-made businessman to come in from the flanks and use his own story to sell the message of conservatism, free from the baggage of the established faces of the Republican party.
This would be a problem for Obama, except in this case that man is Donald Trump, and he's a buffoon. I mean, he could have come in and talked about how he made so much money, created so much wealth for America, and that he could run America like a business. But he didn't, instead he's kicked off his campaign talking about the birther nonsense. What an idiot.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't really care either way, I think trump will fail. My question is why hasn't the issue been put to bed once and for all. It shouldn't be so difficult to just get the tea party to shut up about this with some concrete proof. Is there a strategy that makes sense not to just put it to bed already?
It's been resolved. The certificate of live birth has been shown. The birth announcement in the paper has been shown.
The people complaining about it are just putting their hands over their eyes and pretending no evidence has been shown, and then asking why no evidence has been provided. It's ridiculous.
Ahtman wrote:What do you mean by 'put to bed'? Do you mean prove it which has been done or get them to shut up about it?
What I mean is show an unbelievable maybe even a ridiculous amount of proof. Just make these people look like complete asses already.
For example my family has the bills, pictures, old 8mm film reals of bringing all my brothers and sisters home. Send someone into the crypts and get the bills, whatever. Maybe they are waiting to deliver this till later to really take the fight out when it matters though.
Andrew1975 wrote:What I mean is show an unbelievable maybe even a ridiculous amount of proof. Just make these people look like complete asses already.
For example my family has the bills, pictures, old 8mm film reals of bringing all my brothers and sisters home. Send someone into the crypts and get the bills, whatever. Maybe they are waiting to deliver this till later to really take the fight out when it matters though.
They have the certificate of live birth. They have the announcement in the paper on the day. That's absolute, knock down 100% evidence. Anyone who thinks that isn't enough is just a cynic throwing out lies in the hope the ill-informed will believe them, a partisan hack happy to ignore reality for the sake of attacking Obama, or a conspiracy nut inclined to believe every story about illegitimate power.
Trump did an awesome interview with CNN in the last few days, he certainly seems to want the US to be as awesome as it was pre-Obama/GFC...
DONALD TRUMP: We have a man right now that almost certainly will go down as the worst president in the history of the United States.
JANE COWAN: He says there's a good possibility he will run, and if he does he's clearly planning to draw heavily on his business credentials.
DONALD TRUMP: You know why they know my name? Because of success. That's why they know my name essentially. I built a very big net worth. I would love to put that ability to work for this country.
JANE COWAN: Donald Trump says Barack Obama has turned America into a joke.
DONALD TRUMP: Look at Libya, look at this mess. We go in, we don't go in. He shouldn't be removed, we don't want to remove him, we don't want to touch him. Nobody knows what they're doing.
JANE COWAN: In an interview on CNN that had host Candy Crowley with a look of disbelief on her face throughout, Trump outlined his approach to Libya.
DONALD TRUMP: Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all.
CANDY CROWLEY: You'd just take their oil?
DONALD TRUMP: Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil. You know, in the old days, …
CANDY CROWLEY: Wait, we can't go …
DONALD TRUMP: In the old days when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours.
I kind of hope Trump does run/win : they have to release things about their health and medical issues right ? At long, long last the truth about exactly what it is on his head will be revealed.
I hope Joe the Plumber and Heidi Fleiss win. They were running successful businesses too until the democrats destroyed his customer base with natural disasters, and demonized her credibility with their probing investigations.
If it weren't for those meddling democrats with their ridiculous spending habits, the clean up process for the Dubya years would have looked so much brighter during the immediate four years following that 8-year long unnatural disaster.
Just imagine how much better the post-disaster years would have been you know, if the country was run by a profiteering rich guy with his own cult of personality? The only thing that could have made it any brighter would be if the whole thing was backed by a mandate from a nascar driver, an oil baron, a homophobic Jesus prophet, and the editorial staff of soldier-of-fortune magazine. Finally a leadership that can truly represent the Unity of our states.
Guitardian wrote:Just imagine how much better the post-disaster years would have been you know, if the country was run by a profiteering rich guy with his own cult of personality?
Yes but the current cult of personality didn't have the backing of nascar and jesus and soldier of fortune on his side. That's why he's screwing everything up.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:JANE COWAN: In an interview on CNN that had host Candy Crowley with a look of disbelief on her face throughout, Trump outlined his approach to Libya.
DONALD TRUMP: Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all.
CANDY CROWLEY: You'd just take their oil?
DONALD TRUMP: Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil. You know, in the old days, …
CANDY CROWLEY: Wait, we can't go …
DONALD TRUMP: In the old days when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours.
I have an uncle that talks nonsense almost that exact same nonsense when he's drunk.
Guitardian wrote:Yes but the current cult of personality didn't have the backing of nascar and jesus and soldier of fortune on his side. That's why he's screwing everything up.
Well, not NASCAR at least.
He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:JANE COWAN: In an interview on CNN that had host Candy Crowley with a look of disbelief on her face throughout, Trump outlined his approach to Libya.
DONALD TRUMP: Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all.
CANDY CROWLEY: You'd just take their oil?
DONALD TRUMP: Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil. You know, in the old days, …
CANDY CROWLEY: Wait, we can't go …
DONALD TRUMP: In the old days when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours.
I have an uncle that talks nonsense almost that exact same nonsense when he's drunk.
Perhaps that's how we should do all the candidate interviews, at closing time after a night on the lash, whilst they are slumped against the bar and repeating themselves and telling the landlord they 'love you like a bruther man, yur me best mate!'
I bet serious cash Bachmann is an absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto... 'oh lookit tha, me bra strap's fallin orf, be a gent and 'itch it back up love.. oooh, ain't you got strong 'ands... *hic*'
Guitardian wrote:Yes but the current cult of personality didn't have the backing of nascar and jesus and soldier of fortune on his side. That's why he's screwing everything up.
Well, not NASCAR at least.
He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.
biccat wrote:Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."
Way to raise the bar guys.
Cripes, after that much (not sure what a Dirty Vimto is) who wouldn't be?
biccat wrote:He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.
Do tell. which militants would those be?
Mostly former-terrorists-turned-college-professors. Although I'm sure the ELF et al are on his side.
Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."
Way to raise the bar guys.
So now Dorn and Ayers are a Militia? Proof? any proof to the ELF claim as well?
Militant, not militia.
Are you seriously suggesting there are no left-wing terrorists/militants? While ELF might be a poor example (honestly, I haven't heard anything from them in a few years), they're certainly a left-wing group. But then again, I don't know if I could name a specific right-wing militant group that specifically supported Bush, as the above poster alluded to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
biccat wrote:Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."
Way to raise the bar guys.
Cripes, after that much (not sure what a Dirty Vimto is) who wouldn't be?
I think the inability of anybody to name a left wing militant group that's actually done anything in the last 30 years seems to imply that they're pretty rare.
Not that right wing groups do anything either. From what I remember seeing of the Michigan Milita growing up in the 90's they were basically LARPers with live ammo.
Polonius wrote:I think the inability of anybody to name a left wing militant group that's actually done anything in the last 30 years seems to imply that they're pretty rare.
Not that right wing groups do anything either. From what I remember seeing of the Michigan Milita growing up in the 90's they were basically LARPers with live ammo.
I know you're referring to groups within the USA, but could the ETA be seen as left-wing?
biccat wrote:He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.
Do tell. which militants would those be?
Mostly former-terrorists-turned-college-professors. Although I'm sure the ELF et al are on his side.
Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."
Way to raise the bar guys.
So now Dorn and Ayers are a Militia? Proof? any proof to the ELF claim as well?
Militant, not militia.
Are you seriously suggesting there are no left-wing terrorists/militants? While ELF might be a poor example (honestly, I haven't heard anything from them in a few years), they're certainly a left-wing group. But then again, I don't know if I could name a specific right-wing militant group that specifically supported Bush, as the above poster alluded to.
No, i'm seiously asking you to prove the link to Obama and the groups you site. just because they exhist, they're working for President Obama? Really?
and you've mentioned 2 so-called militants. where is the rest of the masses?
alarmingrick wrote:No, i'm seiously asking you to prove the link to Obama and the groups you site. just because they exhist, they're working for President Obama? Really?
and you've mentioned 2 so-called militants. where is the rest of the masses?
I said "militants" and I established the truthfulness of the argument. I admit that the ELF hasn't been active for a while, so I'll withdraw that part.
The original poster I was responding to implied that militants were an exclusive right-wing phenomenon. If you're interested in having this discussion, please substantiate this claim.
biccat wrote:Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."
Way to raise the bar guys.
Really, you've just now decided that jokes about public figures aren't okay? I mean, did you think what would happen if such a rule into place? Half the board would be banned in the first week for their attacks on Jervis Johnson.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Are you seriously suggesting there are no left-wing terrorists/militants?
No, just questioning your silly claim that any such group supported Obama. The logic behind which seems to be that they exist, they're on the left wing, everything on the left is all one giant group, therefore they support Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The original poster I was responding to implied that militants were an exclusive right-wing phenomenon. If you're interested in having this discussion, please substantiate this claim.
No he didn't. He said that soldiers of fortune were on Bush's side, and well, I don't think it's a particularly outlandish claim that the militia groups that go wandering around the backwoods playing army games on weekends are going to be more aligned with Republicans than Democrats.
Meanwhile, you're claiming Obama got plenty of support from militants, which you really haven't substantiated in any way.
alarmingrick wrote:No, i'm seiously asking you to prove the link to Obama and the groups you site. just because they exhist, they're working for President Obama? Really?
and you've mentioned 2 so-called militants. where is the rest of the masses?
I said "militants" and I established the truthfulness of the argument. I admit that the ELF hasn't been active for a while, so I'll withdraw that part.
The original poster I was responding to implied that militants were an exclusive right-wing phenomenon. If you're interested in having this discussion, please substantiate this claim.
biccat wrote:You "win" at arguments by shouting down and insulting other posters, with little to no regard for their responses, it's just another chance for you to belittle and attack them.
It glorious that you can completely shut down biccat by quoting him back at himself.
sebster wrote:Really, you've just now decided that jokes about public figures aren't okay? I mean, did you think what would happen if such a rule into place? Half the board would be banned in the first week for their attacks on Jervis Johnson.
There's a difference between making a political joke and calling a female politician a "whore." If such a label had been thrown around about her lobbying activities or something, it might be legitimate. But in the context it was given, it's misogynist.
sebster wrote:He said that soldiers of fortune were on Bush's side, and well, I don't think it's a particularly outlandish claim that the militia groups that go wandering around the backwoods playing army games on weekends are going to be more aligned with Republicans than Democrats.
Man, that totally makes sense.
sebster wrote:The logic behind which seems to be that they exist, they're on the leftright wing, everything on the leftright is all one giant group, therefore they support ObamaBush.
Oh wait, no, it doesn't.
I'm done responding to your inconsistent posts. Welcome to the ignore list.
Bookrack wrote:It glorious that you can completely shut down biccat by quoting him back at himself.
Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Meh, Trump is just another nutjob. The only difference is that he's got money so that means he gets to be a presidential candidate.
Either that or he's just playing the other nutjobs and laughing all the way to the bank as he gets sponsors and donaters to give him money he doesn't need.
edit: Oh, and yes, all birthers are nutjobs. Yes you are. You're just like the damn truthers, claiming that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Birthers are EXACTLY like them. Conspiracy nuts one and all.
I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.
You need only look at the Green party to see that many left wingers have distanced themselves from the Democrats, and no longer see them as a viable option. I can't really find much data on the subject, but I contend that right-wing militancy is simply less radical than left wing, and is more likey to include supporters of mainstream candidates.
Meaning, when you start talking violence among lefties, you're pulling from a group that generally isn't big into militria. while right wing groups natrually blend into hunting groups, gun clubs, veterans groups, etc. I'm not saying all or any of those groups are militants, but it's hard to tell which guys holding guns and wearing camo are militants and which ones are a gun club.
Here's an interesting article on domestic terroirism:
Essentially, left wing militants were the biggest threat during the late cold war, but right wing or single issue threats have now surpassed them in terms of threat level.
biccat wrote:
There's a difference between making a political joke and calling a female politician a "whore." If such a label had been thrown around about her lobbying activities or something, it might be legitimate. But in the context it was given, it's misogynist.
I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...
I mean seriously, hypocricy much?
You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?
[EDIT]: Misogynist is the noun, the word you wanted was "misogynistic"
Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.
Why not? The only difference suggested between the two groups is right vs. left. Without more, saying that right-wing militias support Bush while left-wing militants don't support Obama is inconsistent.
dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.
biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...
So, you'll agree that Bookwrack's (apologies for misspelling his name in my other post) comment was incorrect? Because now you're the one moving the goalposts. His claim was that I was "shouting down and insulting other posters." Now, the new claim is that I'm "moving the goalposts."
If you're going to respond to my post, then respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Goliath wrote:You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
I assume you mean "repudiations," since I assume you're not being ironic. I ignored sebster's "refudiations" because he thinks that personal attacks are a valid debate technique. I think that he's wrong, and honestly, I don't want to read more of his insulting drivel.
Goliath wrote:You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?
The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum. No one else seemed even moderately phased by the comment, so I guess it's open season on female politicians. I'm simply rising to the level of discourse that is provided.
dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.
Which part? The comparison of lecher (a person who indulges in an inordinate amount of sex, male connotation) and whore (a person who is either promiscuous or immoral, female connotation), or the bit about misogyny (hatred of women)?
Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.
Why not? The only difference suggested between the two groups is right vs. left. Without more, saying that right-wing militias support Bush while left-wing militants don't support Obama is inconsistent.
Hmm, it's odd that I would make a statment and not explaint my point...
Oh wait....
Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.
You need only look at the Green party to see that many left wingers have distanced themselves from the Democrats, and no longer see them as a viable option. I can't really find much data on the subject, but I contend that right-wing militancy is simply less radical than left wing, and is more likey to include supporters of mainstream candidates.
Meaning, when you start talking violence among lefties, you're pulling from a group that generally isn't big into militria. while right wing groups natrually blend into hunting groups, gun clubs, veterans groups, etc. I'm not saying all or any of those groups are militants, but it's hard to tell which guys holding guns and wearing camo are militants and which ones are a gun club.
The nature of the groups are very different, if no other reason than right wing groups of nearly all stripes consider gun rights important. few left wing groups do. In your post you compare right wing militias to left wing militants. I think that's telling: there are no left wing militias, while there are both right and left wing militants. So saying that a right wing militia is likely to support a republican is not the same as saying a left wing (or right wing) militant supports any given candidate. One is a group organized for some given purpose, the other are much smaller groups or individuals that see the government as being unviable, and force being necessary.
Polonius wrote:Hmm, it's odd that I would make a statment and not explaint my point...
I was merely pointing out the inconsistency issue in sebster's post.
While you have provided some reasoning to support a difference between right and left, I don't think it's necessarily dispositive of the issue.
Left wing anti-war protests (which could getviolent) have pretty much dropped off since the 2008 election, despite the continued presence of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya).
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the reduction in anti-war violence is due to Obama's election.
Short answer: Some people are going to be crazy regardless of politics. Some people are going to be crazy based on politics regardless of political affiliation. Most people aren't going to be crazy.
The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum
It really is lovely the way that you keep raising this issue. The actual truth of the matter, is of course somewhat more complicated. I would suggest a careful rereading of what was actually said, especially with regards to context.
dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.
Which part? The comparison of lecher (a person who indulges in an inordinate amount of sex, male connotation) and whore (a person who is either promiscuous or immoral, female connotation), or the bit about misogyny (hatred of women)?
Lecher can be either lewdness or sexual promiscuity, and is more commonly used in the context of lewdness.
"Lecher" is not commonly used as a similar word as "whore."
Polonius wrote:Hmm, it's odd that I would make a statment and not explaint my point...
I was merely pointing out the inconsistency issue in sebster's post.
While you have provided some reasoning to support a difference between right and left, I don't think it's necessarily dispositive of the issue.
Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Left wing anti-war protests (which could getviolent) have pretty much dropped off since the 2008 election, despite the continued presence of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya).
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the reduction in anti-war violence is due to Obama's election.
Well, I'd imagine they'd also be at least somewhat satisfied with the troop draw down in Iraq, which was always the more contentious of the wars. I think you're correct in that at least some of the fire died due to the transition (it'd embarassing to the left to protest against an ostensibly left wing president on a core issue), but I wouldn't minimize the change that's occured since (if not because of) the election.
Of course, lumping anti-war protesters in with militants starts to get hazy. I'm not saying it can't be done, but pushing and shoving at a large rally isn't exactly militant. The same thing can happen at a Phish Concert, and nobody is calling them militant.
Short answer: Some people are going to be crazy regardless of politics. Some people are going to be crazy based on politics regardless of political affiliation. Most people aren't going to be crazy.
I'd agree, if only that militants and actual terrorists are probably closer to crazy than most. But, and this is key, is that militias, which are different in that whiel they are organized and committed to the idea of violence see themselves as reactive and do not seek out violence, are almost all right wing. They're not really terrorists, but they're also, well, militant.
that's the key to this: if you define militant to mean "person that uses violence to advance a cause," you might have a point, but even then the stats don't back it up. If instead you look at groups that share both a structure and comfort with violence as militant, than the picture widens dramatically.
dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.
Which part? The comparison of lecher (a person who indulges in an inordinate amount of sex, male connotation) and whore (a person who is either promiscuous or immoral, female connotation), or the bit about misogyny (hatred of women)?
Lecher can be either lewdness or sexual promiscuity, and is more commonly used in the context of lewdness.
"Lecher" is not commonly used as a similar word as "whore."
I know, right! It's like, totally unlikely that my post could have been a humorous response to another humorous post and instead was a vicious and vile attack on the sovereignty of womanhood. That's why I chose that picture of her with a pearl necklace!! It is to clearly demonstrate the inferiority of woman and their rank as objectifiable second class citizens, suited only to carrying my seed and cooking my dinner, that's precisely what I tell Mrs S every damned day as I beat her vigorously with wet celery.
Did my sarcasm provide a pleasant and complimentary aperitif to your multiple course meal of passive aggressive attempted moderator manipulation?
biccat wrote:
Lecher can be either lewdness or sexual promiscuity, and is more commonly used in the context of lewdness.
Yes, and "whore" if often used as a synonym for venal, and can therefore have nothing at all to do with sexuality.
biccat wrote:
"Lecher" is not commonly used as a similar word as "whore."
You're free to your opinion, though I think you're absolutely incorrect. Moreover, my argument was from "often" not from any sort of comparative degree of common usage.
biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...
So, you'll agree that Bookwrack's (apologies for misspelling his name in my other post) comment was incorrect? Because now you're the one moving the goalposts. His claim was that I was "shouting down and insulting other posters." Now, the new claim is that I'm "moving the goalposts."
If you're going to respond to my post, then respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Goliath wrote:You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
I assume you mean "repudiations," since I assume you're not being ironic. I ignored sebster's "refudiations" because he thinks that personal attacks are a valid debate technique. I think that he's wrong, and honestly, I don't want to read more of his insulting drivel.
Goliath wrote:You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?
The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum. No one else seemed even moderately phased by the comment, so I guess it's open season on female politicians. I'm simply rising to the level of discourse that is provided.
You have simply chosen to interpret an obviously exaggerated joke as a serious political attack.
Now you propose to use that as an excuse to change your own tone.
Polonius wrote:Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Of course there's a difference. But to suggest that the post in question wasn't inconsistent is a bit silly.
Polonius wrote:Well, I'd imagine they'd also be at least somewhat satisfied with the troop draw down in Iraq, which was always the more contentious of the wars. I think you're correct in that at least some of the fire died due to the transition (it'd embarassing to the left to protest against an ostensibly left wing president on a core issue), but I wouldn't minimize the change that's occured since (if not because of) the election.
Well, it's also a little embarassing to protest against the guy you voted for.
Polonius wrote:that's the key to this: if you define militant to mean "person that uses violence to advance a cause," you might have a point, but even then the stats don't back it up. If instead you look at groups that share both a structure and comfort with violence as militant, than the picture widens dramatically.
Militant would be those who see the use of violence as a legitimate means to an end.
Polonius wrote:Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Of course there's a difference. But to suggest that the post in question wasn't inconsistent is a bit silly.
It looks inconsistent. Lumping members of one group together, and then protesting the lumping of members of a second group together, is only inconsistent if the groups lumping being done is equally proper or improper in both cases. If the first lumping is more proper than the second, than it's not inconsistent at all. It becomes a question of fact, and I think that so far there has been some pretty decent theories that:
1) Left wing militnats are less common that right wingers
2) The far left wing is more dis-enchanted with the democrats than the far right is with republicans
Well, it's also a little embarassing to protest against the guy you voted for.
It is. I think it's well documented that people are always willing to overlook a behavior in a friend or ally that they would find fault with in a friend.
Militant would be those who see the use of violence as a legitimate means to an end.
I'm not wild about that definition, as it's so vague as to include nearly everybody. Surely violence is a legitimate means to some ends.
I'd suggest something closer to "a person that sees violence as a legitimate means to advance a political end."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will say that there is a point to be made that women are disproportionatley attacked for their sexuality. Rarely are men mocked for possibly being promiscouis. So, while clearly a joke, it does hint at the innate sexism in much of our culture.
That said, in the current instance while I agree with the principle that it was in poor taste, I'm not sure that the concern raised is legitimate, and not simply an exercise in tangential conflict.
Polonius wrote:Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Of course there's a difference. But to suggest that the post in question wasn't inconsistent is a bit silly.
It looks inconsistent. Lumping members of one group together, and then protesting the lumping of members of a second group together, is only inconsistent if the groups lumping being done is equally proper or improper in both cases.
When there's no attempt to distinguish between the two, it's inconsistent.
Round fruit like oranges are good for throwing at people.
Round fruit like coconuts are not good for throwing at people.
Unless I propose some disctinction between oranges and coconuts, there's no way to judge how these statements are not inconsistent as they pertain to round fruits.
Polonius wrote:1) Left wing militnats are less common that right wingers
I don't think this is necessarily true. Left-wing militias are less common than right-wing militias, since the idea of a militia is almost inherently anti-leftist. But there isn't really a whole lot of right-wing violence, or protests that turn violent, in the U.S.
Polonius wrote:2) The far left wing is more dis-enchanted with the democrats than the far right is with republicans
I think this is largely a view based on your perception. The tea party is clear evidence that conservatives are not happy with Republicans. Ditto with the Rand/Ron Paul fanatics. There really isn't anyone comparable on the left (maybe Kucinich).
Polonius wrote:I'd suggest something closer to "a person that sees violence as a legitimate means to advance a political end."
Fair enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Hmmm, lets consider mainstream comedy movies and perhaps glean a message we can all relate to in your case.
Wow, that's really quite terrible. And I am not joking.
biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...
So, you'll agree that Bookwrack's (apologies for misspelling his name in my other post) comment was incorrect? Because now you're the one moving the goalposts. His claim was that I was "shouting down and insulting other posters." Now, the new claim is that I'm "moving the goalposts."
If you're going to respond to my post, then respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
I wasn't responding to that exact example, I was commenting on your insistence that he was "moving the goalposts" which you seem to have done previously in the "90% of planned parenthood" thread, where you repeatedly countered peoples arguments by changing which argument you were having.
biccat wrote:
Goliath wrote:You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
I assume you mean "repudiations," since I assume you're not being ironic. I ignored sebster's "refudiations" because he thinks that personal attacks are a valid debate technique. I think that he's wrong, and honestly, I don't want to read more of his insulting drivel.
I felt like using one of Ms. Palin's choice inventions, for the giggles.
Your "drivel" is hardly less insulting to him, with the constant assertations that he is inconsistent, which he may be, because (and heres the kicker) You're both being a teensy bit inconsistent with your arguments.
biccat wrote:
Goliath wrote:You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?
The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum. No one else seemed even moderately phased by the comment, so I guess it's open season on female politicians. I'm simply rising to the level of discourse that is provided.
Hypothetical conversation:
Person 1: blah blah blah ... You're cousin is stupid... blah blah blah
Person 2: Don't use terms like that! It comes across as stupidist!!
Biccat's desire to have every conversation revolve around him aside, trump isn't going to make himself look reasonable by having a hardline stance on a position that has already been proved wrong...
biccat wrote:
Unless I propose some disctinction between oranges and coconuts, there's no way to judge how these statements are not inconsistent as they pertain to round fruits.
Maybe it was an exercise left to the reader. If the statement can be backed up, and shown not inconsistent, than maybe it was just hastily typed.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Left-wing militias are less common than right-wing militias, since the idea of a militia is almost inherently anti-leftist. But there isn't really a whole lot of right-wing violence, or protests that turn violent, in the U.S.
I guess it depends on where you draw the lines. The data I've found is older, but i terms of incidents you're probably right. The environmental terrorists stay pretty active with arsons and bombings, while more right wing activities tend to be less frequent (though do seem to be fatal more often).
Polonius wrote:2) The far left wing is more dis-enchanted with the democrats than the far right is with republicans
I think this is largely a view based on your perception. The tea party is clear evidence that conservatives are not happy with Republicans. Ditto with the Rand/Ron Paul fanatics. There really isn't anyone comparable on the left (maybe Kucinich).
Really? Didn't tea party members vote republicans into office? And didn't Gore lose an election because left wingers voted green? There's an argument to be made the largest third party in the US is the green party, which is very left wing. When you're still voting for somebody with (R) after your name, it's hard to call them throroughly disenchanted.
Polonius wrote:Really? Didn't tea party members vote republicans into office?
Yes, but the latest chatter seems to be disappointment with the Republican leaders.
Polonius wrote:And didn't Gore lose an election because left wingers voted green?
I'm not sure about that. I am not aware of any states that Bush won by a close enough margin that the Green vote made a difference.
Polonius wrote:There's an argument to be made the largest third party in the US is the green party, which is very left wing.
There's some debate as to whether the largest 3rd party is Libertarians (more right than left) or Greens (more left than right). I wouldn't call it one way or the other.
Polonius wrote:When you're still voting for somebody with (R) after your name, it's hard to call them throroughly disenchanted.
I'm not sure that they're "thoroughly disenchanted," or that I called them disenchanted. But there is plenty of evidence that conservatives are not happy with Republicans.
Well, the GOP constantly fails to deliver on it's promises. The religious right waited for 8 Bush years for something to happen, and it never did. The Tea Party seemed to think they were going to take over the federal government with 1/3 of the majority in one House of Congress. Latest chatter is one thing, but when the tea party not only wins races, but increases overall turnout and turnout for the party, that's still helping the GOP.
If 1% of the green party vote had gone to Gore, the entire presidential election changes. And the green party vote is greater than all other 3rd party votes combined.
By one count, the Constitution party is the larget 3rd party by registration, although that is nearly all in California, where they are allied with the American Independent party, which is currently in some form of schism:
Greens do outnumber Libretarians, but it's actually pretty close, both in registraiton and local election success.
I'd argue that given the influence greens have had in tight elections, it shows that they are, in fact, thoroughly disenchanted with the democrats in much the same way libretarians are with republicans, but far from the way the Tea Pary is from the GOP.
Polonius wrote:Well, the GOP constantly fails to deliver on it's promises. The religious right waited for 8 Bush years for something to happen, and it never did.
Most hard-line political people are disappointed in their leaders, it's not an exclusive left or right problem. Bush's failure to perform for the Republicans led to the election of Obama in '08, and the tea party helped turnout in '10.
Polonius wrote:As for the influence of the green party, are you really forgetting florida?
If 1% of the green party vote had gone to Gore, the entire presidential election changes. And the green party vote is greater than all other 3rd party votes combined.
Good point. Although I don't expect that those numbers would have been the same even if 1% of the green party vote had gone to Gore. There were a lot of issues in Florida, mainly regarding when to stop counting. Bush wanted to stop when he was ahead, Gore wanted to wait until he had a lead to stop counting.
Anyway, I think we're arguing minor points here, so I'm not sure what's left to cover.
Well, the green party numbers show that there is a larger chunk of the left wing that is non-democrat than there is right wing that is non-republican. The numbers are (slightly) larger, and greens are nearly uniformly left wing. Libretarians are more right wing, but have major problems with the social platforms of the GOP. To an extent the Libs are becoming another part of the right wing, but too many of their views are off the standard spectrum to really apply.
Polonius wrote:Well, the green party numbers show that there is a larger chunk of the left wing that is non-democrat than there is right wing that is non-republican.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Even if the Green party is larger than the Libertarian, you're still discounting the "American Constitution Party" which is very conservative.
Plus, there are a lot of conservatives (and liberals) who are registered independents.
So I don't think that your comment is verifiable.
I suppose you could compare election results in a given year vs. party registrations, but it still wouldn't account for non-voters, which might be higher for one side (Democrats in '08) or the other (Republicans in '10) based on the political climate.
I would tend to concur with Biccat that it's tough to verify. Especially given that a lot of us on both sides of the spectrum who are disenchanted with the dominant parties register or identify as Independent.
That being said, the Green Party in 2000 definitely had a very dramatic impact to the detriment of the Dems, as opposed to the Tea Party in 2008, which very much boosted the Reps, even if it was particular flavors of Rep. IMO what numbers we do have do seem to support there being greater factionalization and functional opposition to the dominant party on the Left side. The results of those two elections are pretty illustrative.
From a British perspective, there is very little clear water between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in most areas of policy.
The Democrats are far more business friendly than the Greens. The Tea Partiers don't seem to have any particular line on business. They seem to be mainly anti-government, or for small government, whatever that means.
When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Kilkrazy wrote:When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Well yeah... republicans as a party don't really care about the debt, they just use it as a point of argument.
For the most part (there are exceptions of course), you can't really be a successful politician in the US without being business-friendly, oftentimes very much so.
Kilkrazy wrote:When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Well yeah... republicans as a party don't really care about the debt, they just use it as a point of argument.
For the most part (there are exceptions of course), you can't really be a successful politician in the US without being business-friendly, oftentimes very much so.
That's the problem though. I don't mind business friendly. Stupid is another matter, the nations credit was degraded yesterday because of the national debt , causing the stock market to take a hit.
"While reaffirming its top-tier rating for the U.S. economy, S&P lowered its outlook for America's long-term credit rating to "negative" from "stable" based on the uncertain political debate around the nation's fiscal problems. It said resolution of major issues was unlikely ahead of the 2012 elections.
The report by one of the major agencies that evaluates debt ratings sent stocks tumbling, with the Dow Jones industrial average sinking 140 points on the day."
I'm done responding to your inconsistent posts. Welcome to the ignore list.
Which would be a totally inciteful response, if one presumed groups like ETA must had the same relation to the mainstream of politics that groups like the militias have. This isn't the case, militias been noted in many reports as dutifully turning up on election day to vote to protect their gun rights, no such situation has been found among fringe environmental whackos.
Maybe in future, instead of spotting a difference in two things you don't really understand, instead of declaring it hypocrisy on the part of the other person, you might instead inquire about it, to see if maybe there was something you didn't understand, that way you might not be able to go through life always thinking your team was right, but you might learn something.
Not that this matters anymore, you've put your fingers in your ears and now you're yelling "lalalala I can't hear you!". Which is, again, part of the problem.
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the reduction in anti-war violence is due to Obama's election.
Incidentally, this is a totally reasonable point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Maybe it was an exercise left to the reader. If the statement can be backed up, and shown not inconsistent, than maybe it was just hastily typed.
I had assumed the difference was known. In hindsight, I should have clarified, it was my error, but a small one at worst.
Upon seeing the error, biccat should have asked for clarification, in an attempt to establish an inconsistancy. Simply declaring the inconsistancy without waiting to see if there was any greater information that would demonstrate it was no such thing was a considerably greater failing than my original error.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Really? Didn't tea party members vote republicans into office? And didn't Gore lose an election because left wingers voted green? There's an argument to be made the largest third party in the US is the green party, which is very left wing. When you're still voting for somebody with (R) after your name, it's hard to call them throroughly disenchanted.
There is considerable disenchantment among the right towards the Republican party, hence Freedomworks starting up the Tea Party in an effort to rebrand the party. But that's a disenchantment among the mainstream of the right wing, over the failure of Republicans to do anything over mainstream rght wing issues (read as small government).
Meanwhile the Republicans have had, and continue to have, great success in getting the militias and the fringe groups in to vote on single issues such as guns. The Democrats have not had anywhere near the same effect in getting single issue voters to come in and vote for them, there are few if any "environmental" voters turning up to vote D.
Whether that's a product of a superior Republican political machine or something inherent in the different voting groups, I don't know.
Guitardian wrote:Just imagine how much better the post-disaster years would have been you know, if the country was run by a profiteering rich guy with his own cult of personality?
My god, that would have been terrible.
Wait...don't the Republicans and Conservatives already label Obama a a profiteering rich guy with his own cult of personality? Just with the whole socialism and destroy America thing of course.
Polonius wrote:The Tea Party seemed to think they were going to take over the federal government with 1/3 of the majority in one House of Congress.
It reminds me of the Republican Revolution.
Gingrich: Contract for America! We're taking back the government for the people!
Dole: Lol, noob.
Gingrich: Ethics reforms!
GOP House members: We don't care.
Gingrich: Ethics reforms be damned!
Press: Lol, noob.
Polonius wrote:
Latest chatter is one thing, but when the tea party not only wins races, but increases overall turnout and turnout for the party, that's still helping the GOP.
Yep.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Ryan: Obama's plan assumes 5% growth, that's unrealistic!
Melissia wrote:Not so much that, as much as we are already a very right-wing leaning nation to begin with, so they appear more mainstream.
The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe', with an implication of 'they're kind of a bunch of nazis' thrown in since right-wing in Europe is associated with Neo-Nazi parties. Is favoring freedom of speech right-wing? Freedom of religion? How about extremely loose immigration law? Strong legal protections against discrimination for race, age, religion? Western European political parties ares far-right on all of those topics by US standards - restrictions on political speech and symbols are noncontroversial in Europe, as are restrictions on building buildings for non-christian religions, deporting illegal aliens and refusing to grant citizen ship to people who were born in the country is considered noncontroversial and completely normal, and asking for picture, age, marital status, number of children, and so on is completely routine in hiring decisions.
The only way this really works is to define mainstream as 'kind of sort of like what a lot of europeans think' and 'right wing' as 'something different than that'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:There's some debate as to whether the largest 3rd party is Libertarians (more right than left) or Greens (more left than right). I wouldn't call it one way or the other.
Bringing up the Libertarians really highlights the uselessness of 'left wing' and 'right wing' for anything beyond a convoluted way to say 'republican' or 'democrat' (for the US, for other countries pick two parties). The Libertarian party favors completely legal abortion, which is hardly a right-wing position. And did gay marriage become right wing while I wan't looking? Reducing the military to a level where it's suitable only for national defense, not occupying 2 countries while fighting in a 3rd and maintaining bases all over the place, which is not exactly right-wing. Drug legalization is generally considered left-wing, though I don't think even allegedly left-leaning european countries favor outright legalization of heroin or crystal meth. I'm not sure where jury nullification fits on the left vs right spectrum, but since most of Europe doesn't even have jury trials, it's hard to call it left wing.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe'
Only if someone were to presume Europe to be some kind of mono-culture with a single government, which would be wrong. Or if they were to ignore all the other developed, democratic countries that also stay well to the left of the US politically.
And for the record, while it captures all kind of other elements, for the most part right/left wing is determined on economic grounds, because ultimately that's where most people's votes are decided.
Bringing up the Libertarians really highlights the uselessness of 'left wing' and 'right wing' for anything beyond a convoluted way to say 'republican' or 'democrat' (for the US, for other countries pick two parties). The Libertarian party favors completely legal abortion, which is hardly a right-wing position. And did gay marriage become right wing while I wan't looking? Reducing the military to a level where it's suitable only for national defense, not occupying 2 countries while fighting in a 3rd and maintaining bases all over the place, which is not exactly right-wing. Drug legalization is generally considered left-wing, though I don't think even allegedly left-leaning european countries favor outright legalization of heroin or crystal meth. I'm not sure where jury nullification fits on the left vs right spectrum, but since most of Europe doesn't even have jury trials, it's hard to call it left wing.
Except that 'left' and 'right' are used as general descriptors, not absolute definitions. And in this case placing libertarians on the right works pretty well, as they are far more likely to vote Republican. Despite differences over drug policy and foreign wars, the thing that primarily drives votes is economics, and the libertarians and Republicans line up on that (well, in rhetoric they do, in practice the Republicans having really done all that much about reducing spending).
BearersOfSalvation wrote:The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe'
No it doesn't. I define right-wing as leaning towards free market capitalism and similar economic dieals, while left wing is leaning towards socialism and similar economic ideals.
We're VERY strongly right-wing in that definition. I very much doubt that a REAL socialist could get elected to congress here, nevermind the president.
Melissia wrote:Not so much that, as much as we are already a very right-wing leaning nation to begin with, so they appear more mainstream.
The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe', ...
There is a substantial amount of social science research which indicates that Europeans generally are more collectivist/socially minded, and Americans are more individualistic.
In other words, the US is different to Europe in the key psychological factor that enables socialism.
While I agree that the US is considerably to the right wing, Bernie Sanders goes to show that the US is a diverse place, and it's best not to generalise.
Vermont gets the coolest Senators. They have Bernie and they have Leahy, who's a big fan of Batman, and has a minor role in The Dark Knight, as the old guy who stands up to the Joker at the party.
Vermont gets the coolest Senators. They have Bernie and they have Leahy, who's a big fan of Batman, and has a minor role in The Dark Knight, as the old guy who stands up to the Joker at the party.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv that guy!
(Other than his voting to ban human cloning, Sanders has a most excellent voting record!)
BearersOfSalvation wrote:The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe'
No it doesn't. I define right-wing as leaning towards free market capitalism and similar economic dieals, while left wing is leaning towards socialism and similar economic ideals.
So issues like abortion, immigration, free speech, racial discrimination, crime and punishment, and the like don't matter at all? That is, you would seriously classify someone who wants to deport all the illegal aliens, ban abortion, ban the Koran and any 'Muslim Garb', use the death penalty for most felonies, but who did favor a national health care system (like the republicans pushed for in the 90s until they actually got in office) as a left winger? It doesn't seem like it's a very useful term if that's the case. It gets even weirder when you realize that funding the government more by taxing the middle class or upper class isn't a 'free market versus socialist' issue, nor is funding by taxes versus borrowing, nor funding controversial artistic programs, nor how large to make the military, nor is whether to go to war to protect economic interests, yet all of these are major economic points that people use to pick one party over the other in the US.
We're VERY strongly right-wing in that definition. I very much doubt that a REAL socialist could get elected to congress here, nevermind the president.
I very much doubt that a REAL socialist could get elected to the equivalent of US president in any Western European country (or Australia, Japan, or Canada, which are typically the only additional countries considered in these comparisons). Real socialists advocate either direct worker ownership of the means of production or direct state ownership of the means of production, but I'm not aware of any Western European countries nationalizing additional industries lately, in fact they've done a lot of privatizing, and as far as I know converting companies to worker ownership has never really taken off. Oddball third-party candidates have an easier time getting elected in European parliaments, while the two-party system has had a tight lock on things since the 1950s (only 6 representatives, 2 senators, and no presidents have been elected from outside the big two), so that part doesn't make for a good comparison.
The US, Europe, and the handful of other countries used in these comparisons all run hybrid economic systems. They incorporate things that used to be radical socialist planks like workman's compensation, limited child labor, mandatory overtime pay, unemployment insurance, state provided food for the poor, occupational health and safety laws, state-run retirement plans, protection and recognition of labor unions, minimum wage, and state aid for collecting unpaid wages. But at the same time, they embrace major free market tenants like privately-owned businesses in most areas, which runs counter to the socialist philosophy (where everything should be owned either by the state or the workers at that business), and major protectionist capitalist philosophies like state barriers to new businesses in certain markets. It is not sensible to call any of these highly hybridized economies 'very far' towards full socialism or full free market capitalism, none of them are anywhere near what theory would say they 'should' be.
sebster wrote:Only if someone were to presume Europe to be some kind of mono-culture with a single government, which would be wrong. Or if they were to ignore all the other developed, democratic countries that also stay well to the left of the US politically.
Oh look, it's sebster. Can you justify your "Only if someone were to presume Europe to be some kind of mono-culture with a single government", or is it just condescending nonsense that you made up in hopes that I wouldn't call you on it? Specifically, what words exactly jusfity your claim that I presume that Europe is a mono-culture at all, or that it only has one government?
If you can't justify your false claim about me, I'll take your inability or refusal to do so as a concession that I am completely right on all matters anytime and anywhere.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:So issues like abortion, immigration, free speech, racial discrimination, crime and punishment, and the like don't matter at all?
Now that's a hideously loaded question if I've ever seen one.
And I've seen countless on this forum.
Short answer: not when it comes to determining if someone is left or right wing for me.
Long answer: There are small aspects of each of these which involve economic positions, sure. But most of the time, these are social issues as opposed to economic. Social issues are typically divided between authoritarian and liberal, IE, someone takes a more liberal stance on abortion believes that it should be legal, for example, while someone taking a more authoritarian position on free speech wants to have limits on it of some sort. A more right wing economic stance on abortion would be "government shouldn't pay for abortion as it is an optional procedure" (typically free market advocates do not like government intervention), while a more left-wing economic stance on freedom of speech is more "government should regulate [or even control] the nation's news agencies so they focus more on delivering news than entertainment", to give examples.
biccat wrote:
That was Switzerland, and they banned Minarets on Mosques because they blocked people's views of the mountains.
Fran banned the hijab (veil).
Close. They banned any overt religious trappings. Which would presumably include any overt Christian symbols as well.
Also, the hijab is not necessarily a veil, it is generally used to refer to a head covering or scarf. Niqab (lower veil) and burqa (full veil) are usually used to refer to veils.
What's up with people confusing Sweden and Switzerland all the time? I've been called Swiss more times than I've been called Swedish on these forums...
AlmightyWalrus wrote:What's up with people confusing Sweden and Switzerland all the time? I've been called Swiss more times than I've been called Swedish on these forums...
Trust me, it could've been worse. they could have called you a Texan....
AlmightyWalrus wrote:What's up with people confusing Sweden and Switzerland all the time? I've been called Swiss more times than I've been called Swedish on these forums...
As long as they don't call you late for dinner!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:What's up with people confusing Sweden and Switzerland all the time? I've been called Swiss more times than I've been called Swedish on these forums...
Trust me, it could've been worse. they could have called you a Texan....
biccat wrote:
Close. They banned any overt religious trappings. Which would presumably include any overt Christian symbols as well.
My mistake, though given France's secular nature I'm a bit apprehensive about saying the law is somehow universal.
biccat wrote:
Also, the hijab is not necessarily a veil, it is generally used to refer to a head covering or scarf. Niqab (lower veil) and burqa (full veil) are usually used to refer to veils.
No, but in general "hijab" refers to the minimal facial covering required of women in more conservative Muslim sects. Etymologically it draws from the Qu'ranic concept of modesty.
You are right though, at least about Niqab, which literally refers to a facial covering. Burqa, however, is a word for body covering with facial concealment attached.
biccat wrote:Close. They banned any overt religious trappings. Which would presumably include any overt Christian symbols as well.
My mistake, though given France's secular nature I'm a bit apprehensive about saying the law is somehow universal.
OK, I take that back, there are two laws in question. The first prevented religious trappings in schools which is what I thought the whole controversy was about. It appears that there's a second law that also bans any face coverings (including a balaclava, not to be confused with baklava). Although it's not specifically targetted towards Islamic dress, it's clear that was the intent.
Sorry.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Also, the hijab is not necessarily a veil, it is generally used to refer to a head covering or scarf. Niqab (lower veil) and burqa (full veil) are usually used to refer to veils.
No, but in general "hijab" refers to the minimal facial covering required of women in more conservative Muslim sects. Etymologically it draws from the Qu'ranic concept of modesty.
You are right though, at least about Niqab, which literally refers to a facial covering. Burqa, however, is a word for body covering with facial concealment attached.
Hijab doesn't mean face covering, it generally relates to the code of modesty for dress, and means "covering." A face veil might be part of the hijab, but isn't a hijab.
The Burqa is the term people use when they're talking about a face veil, but yes, it does mean a full body veil that doesn't allow the rest of the body to be seen.
biccat wrote:
Hijab doesn't mean face covering, it generally relates to the code of modesty for dress, and means "covering." A face veil might be part of the hijab, but isn't a hijab.
In MSA hijab refers to the minimal female face covering, and general Muslim modesty.
biccat wrote:Hijab doesn't mean face covering, it generally relates to the code of modesty for dress, and means "covering." A face veil might be part of the hijab, but isn't a hijab.
In MSA hijab refers to the minimal female face covering, and general Muslim modesty.
I'm not sure what "MSA" means in this context. But most Muslims wouldn't call a face scarf a hijab. It's like the difference between "shirt" and "clothing." You could say that a Polo is "clothing," but it would be more specific to call it a "shirt."
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what "MSA" means in this context.
Modern Standard Arabic.
biccat wrote:
But most Muslims wouldn't call a face scarf a hijab. It's like the difference between "shirt" and "clothing." You could say that a Polo is "clothing," but it would be more specific to call it a "shirt."
I disagree completely. You're applying neutral gender standards that don't generally exist in colloquial MSA.
Am I supposed to consider the BBC authoritative? Bernard Lewis himself would be upset by that.
Anyway, of course they are, my point was never that "niqab" does not mean "scarf covering the face" my point was that hijab means "minimal acceptable female clothing" which often entails a facial scarf.
On the original topic, I saw a tabloid at the supermarket today with a headline something like "President Scared of What 'The Donald' Has Uncovered" (re: birth cert).
I laughed out loud.
Kilkrazy wrote:
biccat wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:...ban the Koran and any 'Muslim Garb'...
Well, France has banned the Burqua, or Hijab. I forget.And didn't Sweden prohibit anyone to build more mosques?
That was Switzerland, and they banned Minarets on Mosques because they blocked people's views of the mountains.
Unlike church towers and high rise office blocks.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:What's up with people confusing Sweden and Switzerland all the time? I've been called Swiss more times than I've been called Swedish on these forums...
Must be bad geography skills. A friend of mine was just doing this at Adepticon! We were talking about the Swedes who came over and how good they were, and he was saying "yeah, I got beat by a guy from there", and I had to point out that the guy he played lives in Switzerland.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:What's up with people confusing Sweden and Switzerland all the time? I've been called Swiss more times than I've been called Swedish on these forums...
Sorry mate, I know where Sweden and Switzerland are (geographically). I knew that a European country that started with 'S' had passed this law, and that it waan't Spain.
