Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As someone of hispanic descent and having grown up in a hispanic community, it's mind-blowing that the GOP has not made inroads among those communities. Hispanics are natural Republicans in many ways.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sixty percent of the viewing public no longer trusts the media. The percentage of distrust is highest among Republicans and Independents. The group with the highest trust level is Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

Is that because of a liberal bias in media, or in an anti-media bias in conservatism?

I'd posit the latter is a reaction to the former.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.

And now it's clear Fraz is entirely ignorant of the religious right.

Religious Right in reality - no, not at all. They are about a 9 on Frazzled's list of groups he can't stand and can stay the hell off his lawn. About the ame level as California/Austin/Bloomberg nanny state liberals. Everyone wants to tell me what to do, like they aren't a waste of skin to begin with.

Religious RIght on TV, you betcha. Don't have a clue.

The Republicans should be winning this election, and if it was up to them they would be running a candidate that is even worse/more extreme than Romney.

They should look at their party and realize that they no longer represent a majority of Americans and that they need to adjust (not abandon all their principles, but adjust them). They will probably "double down" instead though.

 d-usa wrote:
The Republicans should be winning this election, and if it was up to them they would be running a candidate that is even worse/more extreme than Romney.

They should look at their party and realize that they no longer represent a majority of Americans and that they need to adjust (not abandon all their principles, but adjust them). They will probably "double down" instead though.

Ancient Budha say, never listen to your enemy when he tries to give you "helpful" advice.
Conservatives (not Republicans) remain a majority in the states. Newsflash: The Democrats aren't a majority either. Self avowed independents have been growing in number for some time.

There is conservative, and there is crazy.

Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.

Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.

Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.

Ouze wrote:As someone of hispanic descent and having grown up in a hispanic community, it's mind-blowing that the GOP has not made inroads among those communities. Hispanics are natural Republicans in many ways.

But there are too many more ways that hispanics are not natural Republicans:
-they are not caucasian
-due to high rates of immigration, their demogrpahic is of a lower economic standing.
-higher rates of immigrants in their demographic
-tend to be Catholic, not evangelical (not entirely sure how much of a factor this is anymore)

d-usa wrote:There is conservative, and there is crazy.

Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.

Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.

Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.

I'd kinda like to see the senate determined by popular vote rather than electoral college. It'd add a new element to the "sober second thought" rationale.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:There is conservative, and there is crazy.

Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.

Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.

Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.

I'd kinda like to see the senate determined by popular vote rather than electoral college. It'd add a new element to the "sober second thought" rationale.

You mean the President via popular vote... right?

I'd go back to the state's legislature voting for the Senate.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:There is conservative, and there is crazy.

Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.

Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.

Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.

I'd kinda like to see the senate determined by popular vote rather than electoral college. It'd add a new element to the "sober second thought" rationale.

You mean the President via popular vote... right?

I'd go back to the state's legislature voting for the Senate.

I am fine with the senate the way it is, not sure if I would like having a state's legislature voting for it. If we make it a state legislature thing then I think Senators should not have a fixed term, but should be replaced whenever a state legislature changes. In Oklahoma our entire house is up every 2 years, and half our senate every 4. So I think it would be dumb if a legislature that is republican appoints a senator for 6 years, and in 2 years the legislature becomes democrat and is stuck with somebody. If Senators are state appointed, then they should have the same term as the legislature that appoints them. Senate should be state specific though.

I would like the house to be based on a popular vote though, in some sort of x% = x seats. I'm not sure if I would tie it to the presidential vote though, since it seems to break apart the separation of the branches to much. House and Presidency would almost always be controlled by the same party by default in a system like this. I think I would prefer either a separate state vote or a breakdown of the presidential vote by state (although I would prefer the state vote more) and have their seats determined by percentage.

Oklahoma has 5 seats for example, so each 20% gives you an uncontested seat. The democrats would have a system similar to electors where they say "these are our 5 candidates", same for the republicans, etc. So a 55-45 split in the vote towards republicans would send 3 R's and 2 D's to DC.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just to tie some "is this racist" back into this mix:

It appears these pictures hosted on the Mecklenburg County VA Republican Party Facebook page are causing a bit of a stink:

Damn... That's pretty bad D...

Regardless on how to coincide the term limits between the US Senate vs. State legislatures, I think that a "governing body" such as each states' legislature, wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate. I think the Senate would be a bit different if they're held accountable by their home state legislatures.

I think also, this would force the local voters in having more vested interest in their local elections...

It always surprises me that there is less turnout for Governor races than presidential races in Oklahoma, considering that state races are going to have a much higher impact on us than presidential races.

 whembly wrote:
wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Pics do not offend me. Same as the ones of Romney.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Why not? I mean...sure there's going to be politics involved...

Let me put it this way...

Don't you think the State's legislature should have a "say" in the Federal Government in some way?
It used to be that way... people voted for House and the state's legislature voted for the Senate....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It always surprises me that there is less turnout for Governor races than presidential races in Oklahoma, considering that state races are going to have a much higher impact on us than presidential races.

Yeah... I don't understand that either...

(I'm pretty sure the MO governor is at same time as Prez).

 Jihadin wrote:
Pics do not offend me.

Can't really say that I am surprised.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd posit the latter is a reaction to the former.

I'm still sticking with my normal line that, absent MSNBC, what people call the "liberal media" is really just "not the conservative media" in much the same way my more leftist friends talk about the "conservative media" as "not the liberal media." This is why I see conservatives calling CNN liberal in roughly the same proportion that liberals call it conservative.

I've noticed in personal experience and paying attention to rhetoric that any information which does not conform to ones preconceptions is labelled as biased against those preconceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The Republicans should be winning this election, and if it was up to them they would be running a candidate that is even worse/more extreme than Romney.

They should look at their party and realize that they no longer represent a majority of Americans and that they need to adjust (not abandon all their principles, but adjust them). They will probably "double down" instead though.

As much as it pains me to say it, I think the problem is quite the opposite. The GOP has, since Reagan, exploited social conservatism (and arguably fiscal conservatism) without actually enacting policies that group would like. The RINO charge is nonsense, but the origin of that sentiment has a very clear basis in reality. I mean, how many Republicans have made serious attempts at passing a ban on abortion? Even now, when social conservatives have the most power they've had in damn near forever, the GOP is talking about an Amendment. That sounds nice and strong, but in reality its kicking the can because they know it will never be passed if they bring it to table.

What's happening now is that the GOP is being forced to engage with the most vocal elements that support it, thank you mass media. Hopefully this ends up being a two-way process in which the supporting elements learn from the existing party and the process itself, but I suspect we're in for at least 5-10 years of theatrical flailing.

Its funny, because the characteristic disunity of the Democrats actually prepared them for the advent of mass engagement with the internet. They seem to have reflexively understood how to organize and leverage a large number of vaguely assenting people. Of course, it also helps that they lost two major elections during the time in which the internet was becoming a "thing".

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Why not? I mean...sure there's going to be politics involved...

Let me put it this way...

Don't you think the State's legislature should have a "say" in the Federal Government in some way?

It seems to me that a separation of powers between state and federal government is part of the checks and balances of the US system. That would be reduced by allowing state governments rather than the people to vote for senators and the president.

I know the president is elected by the electoral college, not the people, and perhaps that should be changed.

 whembly wrote:

Regardless on how to coincide the term limits between the US Senate vs. State legislatures, I think that a "governing body" such as each states' legislature, wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate. I think the Senate would be a bit different if they're held accountable by their home state legislatures.

If you eliminate direct election you eliminate Senatorial battles as significant political events. This means the more important issue becomes the battle for the state Legislature, which a far more widespread and expensive battle.
As it is now for a party to push a senate seat they just have flood a state with advertising money, if you remove direct election they have to target individual districts in order to place sympathetic voters into office. In the past this would mean greater partisan power, but now you can run an effective political campaign for free thanks to the confluence of the internet and local news coverage.

You certainly end up with a different Senate, but whether or not its more or less partisan is hard to say, and dependent on how rigidly campaign finance law is enforced.

 dogma wrote:

If you eliminate direct election you eliminate Senatorial battles as significant political events. This means the more important issue becomes the battle for the state Legislature, which a far more widespread and expensive battle.
As it is now for a party to push a senate seat they just have flood a state with advertising money, if you remove direct election they have to target individual districts in order to place sympathetic voters into office. In the past this would mean greater partisan power, but now you can run an effective political campaign for free thanks to the confluence of the internet and local news coverage.

You certainly end up with a different Senate, but whether or not its more or less partisan is hard to say, and dependent on how rigidly campaign finance law is enforced.

Let me ask you this then...

Hypothecally, let's say that the State's Legislature does vote for the US Senate (ie, 17th amendment is repealed)...

Forget about your views on the ACA bill...

It expands Medicare and Medicaid that forces the states to pay for these expansion.

Do you think those US Senators would pass that bill as-is knowing that their home state's legislatures would have to pay for these expansions? Or any other bill that requires the States to "do something" in order to recieve funding?

You might end up with a senate that functions more like the Bundesrat of Germany.

 d-usa wrote:
You might end up with a senate that functions more like the Bundesrat of Germany.

?? okay... I'll admit my ignorance... I'm gonna do some research on that.

Nice of you to cherry pick that one sentence D-USA. Why not add both of them instead of making me a passive racist

Stop claiming that pics making fun of Mitt for being a rich, out-of-touch douchebag are the same as ones portraying Obama as an African savage with a bone through his nose, and maybe you'll stop looking like a racist.

I'm pretty sure you're not a racist, but you seriously need to pay more attention to what you're looking at and the comments you make on it. At least if you don't want to look like a racist.

I do look at the pic's. D-USA posted pics to get a response and he got one from me. I pointed it out that it doesn't bother me because all the freaking pic's of Mitt already been posted. Yet no one played a race card pic yet beside D-USA. So back up and think outside the box Manny instead of staying in a narrow lane.

I've seen several people post those pics of Obama in a serious manner, especially the one of him in the 'wife beater' shirt.

I'm not sure d-usa showing pictures that are being used by people (you'll recall he said the pics were on a Republican web site, not just some blog) is 'playing the race card'. Showing that Republicans on an official Republican website are posting pictures like that should be offensive to anyone, as it demeans us all. It isn't playing a card, it is showing actual goddamn racism.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here we have to respectfully disagree. If there were a Republican candidate, there would have been an endless drumbeat about it. After al the MSM went berserk about a story of a prank, decades ago from the Romney past. Now put cocaine use and having your mentor being a Weatherman, and they would have been all over it like flies on roadkill.

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?

Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.

Big Ole Moustache wasn't in the US at the time, nor did he kill Americans. Rumsfeld didn't run for office. A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.

Why do you repeat this kind of crap? What kind of stuff are you reading and watching? Didn't you get your video on the mail? Why haven't you switched over to the new line of crazy crap, claiming that Obama's real dad was a Communist propagandist, and Obama's been a secret Communist agent this whole time?

Ayers didn't help kill any cops. Are you talking about Sgt. McDonnell, in the Park Precinct bombing? You know that new grand juries in 2001 and 2009 investigated Ayers in regards to that again, and found that a different organization did that one, right?

Romney’s school days incident was a story for about a week. Even the most rapid liberals dropped it after maybe two. Ayers was in the news for months, as Fox and the McCain campaign tried to get political mileage out of it. Every news outfit not working directly to support Republicans ran with it as well, for quite a while, because it sounded sexy and controversial. Stephanopoulos even asked about it in one of the debates, at Hannity’s suggestion, because such a stink was made out of it. News organizations gradually dropped it as it turned out to have basically no substance, and viewers weren’t interested in it , aside from people so desperate for dirt on Obama that they didn’t care if it was real dirt or manufactured baloney. Hence why Fox kept running it for so long, as that describes half their audience.

When people hear “terrorist” it certainly sounds interesting. When a co-worker of mine first mentioned the idea that Obama was connected to terrorists, which she got from her brother in one of the intelligence agencies, the image that leapt to mind was something like Al Qaeda. And of course that's what the scumbags manufacturing the story want you to think. Barack HUSSEIN Obama the terrorist sympathizer.

Of course, then when people read that the Weathermen never killed anyone (except a few of their own in an accidental explosion), and were careful to give advance notice to evacuate and/or hit empty government buildings and offices, and that it was all in protest of their own country’s involvement in Vietnam… It becomes obvious that they’re not exactly similar to Al Qaeda or its ilk, which deliberately kill large numbers of people. Or even Right-wing domestic terrorists, who have killed on numerous occasions. Then when people learn that most of the charges were dropped against them back in the 1970s due to illegal FBI activities against them, that takes away even more of their “ooh, scary”, factor. Then when they read that Ayers left the group in the 70s, and in 1997 was Citizen of the Year in Chicago for his work in public school reform, it becomes manifestly obvious that there’s nothing scary about him at all, and that while he has a criminal past he’s mostly accepted in his field and community. When people try to tar Obama with the association, it comes off as silly and dumb, because Obama was a child when Ayers was doing anything criminal, and didn’t even meet Ayers until 1995, when Ayers was a widely-respected guy working in education and school reform in Chicago.

The Wright stuff is similarly insubstantial, because Wright’s comments are not particularly more radical or unusual than those of many public and televised preachers. We don’t generally hold politicians responsible for comments made by priests they’re associated with. Most people don’t hold Republican candidates responsible for Falwell orGraham’s more bigoted and insane comments, despite candidates “palling around” with those jackasses and going to speak at the ironically-named Liberty University. Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.

 whembly wrote:

Do you think those US Senators would pass that bill as-is knowing that their home state's legislatures would have to pay for these expansions? Or any other bill that requires the States to "do something" in order to recieve funding?

It depends on the state. Some states save money, others do not. I imagine that the states which do not save money would see their representatives vote against, at least if we control for ideological disposition, and the ones that did would vote for.

A better question is whether or not the bill would be passed, which I don't know off the top of my head. It would depend on, as I said above, ideological bias and net cost across all voting parties.

yea, being a minority that was enslaved when they got here and have really not gotten any fair treatment a lot of the time somehow gets into office and his dark skinned brothers and sisters embracing that is odd? Since we started as a country we have had a white religious man as our "leader"

change is good, in fact it is actually NECESSARY. Now has this change of skin color and name been any good for US, that is to be seen. In all honesty most everything done by a president isn't seen right away. Changes take time, plain and simple

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Do you think those US Senators would pass that bill as-is knowing that their home state's legislatures would have to pay for these expansions? Or any other bill that requires the States to "do something" in order to recieve funding?

It depends on the state. Some states save money, others do not. I imagine that the states which do not save money would see their representatives vote against, at least if we control for ideological disposition, and the ones that did would vote for.

A better question is whether or not the bill would be passed, which I don't know off the top of my head. It would depend on, as I said above, ideological bias and net cost across all voting parties.

Let me take that a step further...

I think that the local legislatures, regardless of political ideology, would consider the cost of such bill and pressure their Senators to vote in favor or against.

People will neve see what they don't want to see.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm referring to the poll mentioned in this editorial. 94% of African-Americans intend to vote for Obama, 0% intend to vote for Romney.

If 94% of white folks planned to vote for a white guy running against a black candidate - and, moreover, exactly none planned to vote for the black dude - would that not be considered a fairly clear sign of racism?

As hard as I find it to believe that any black person would vote for Romney, I'm sure a few of them will. No, it isn't. They aren't voting for Obama because Romney is a "mean ol' white cracka man"; they're voting for Obama because Romney is a fething nightmare.

It's not racism, at least how I see it. It's a bunch of inadvertent cleverness.