• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.

eznark

Banned
Personally I think there is a distinct difference between being "fine with gays" and supporting gay marriage. If the original poster had said it is very, very difficult to find a Republican who supports gay marriage I wouldn't have batted an eye, however the particular poster essentially said you can't find a Republican who doesn't want to eliminate gays. That's the ludicrous part. I ran with ami's poll simply to make it quantifiable.

Count me as someone who is "fine" with homosexuals but does not support gay marriage. (Despite being married, I do not support State recognized marriages for anyone...I'm such a hypocrite).
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Honestly it seems like it's sort of 50/50 in NY, but even the half that don't support it don't care enough to go vote against it (just from what I've seen).
 

Chumly

Member
If we're going to be this picky, 29% of the US identifies as Republican; 25% of that supports gay marriage; therefore, 7.25% of the country are Republicans who support gay marriage. That is slightly more than half the number of African Americans.

However, the general thrust of the point is the more important one than these petty calculations, I think. He's right that we are not supportive of anti-gay sentiment on this forum. There are no comparable positions that Democrats support for which we are equally as intolerant; that is, there is no liberal position which can in and of itself get you banned from this site like homophobia does. As such, even before considering that this is a video game forum or taking anything else in to consideration, a discussion between Republicans and Democrats would naturally weed out a huge number of Republicans just based on this policy position alone. What you'd be left with is... a large pool Democrats, libertarian leaning Republicans, and moderate Republicans. Which is, as it turns out, almost exactly what we see.


I've posted about this before that we weed out a lot of republicans because let's just be honest..... If Michele Bachman or Rick santorum posted on these forums they would get banned pretty quickly. Some other "radical" republicans that would get banned are the anti Muslims, borderline to flat out racist stuff.
 

eznark

Banned
Honestly it seems like it's sort of 50/50 in NY, but even the half that don't support it don't care enough to go vote against it (just from what I've seen).

Here in KOI I think I'm probably more likely to find someone who literally wants to eliminate homosexuals than let them marry, however in Milwaukee and Boston the majority of Republicans I met had zero issues with homosexuals. Since we're quantifying anecdotal evidence, I'd estimate that 75% of the Republicans under 40 that I know support gay marriage. 95% support an end to DADT.

............

0% support Gary Johnson :(
 

RDreamer

Member
Personally I think there is a distinct difference between being "fine with gays" and supporting gay marriage. If the original poster had said it is very, very difficult to find a Republican who supports gay marriage I wouldn't have batted an eye, however the particular poster essentially said you can't find a Republican who doesn't want to eliminate gays. That's the ludicrous part. I ran with ami's poll simply to make it quantifiable.

Count me as someone who is "fine" with homosexuals but does not support gay marriage. (Despite being married, I do not support State recognized marriages for anyone...I'm such a hypocrite).

Try and find someone that defends not supporting gay marriage in an OT thread and survives. I see very very few, since there really aren't that many credible reasons to be against it, honestly. If you're ok with gays you should probably be ok with gay marriage. I guess unless you don't support any marriage at all, like you apparently do, but that's a completely odd and different conversation to have.

My wording did not go as far as to say finding a republican that didn't want to eliminate gays was hard, lol. Yeah I meant to word the second part to refer to "LGBT rights" again rather than "LGBT people" in general, but still. We do have a very liberal and hard lined stance here on that. Look at that trans thread graveyard a while back.


I've posted about this before that we weed out a lot of republicans because let's just be honest..... If Michele Bachman or Rick santorum posted on these forums they would get banned pretty quickly. Some other "radical" republicans that would get banned are the anti Muslims, borderline to flat out racist stuff.

Bachmann and Santorum are one thing, but even Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney themselves would probably have a hard time navigating through a LGBT thread here.
 

eznark

Banned
Try and find someone that defends not supporting gay marriage in an OT thread and survives. I see very very few, since there really aren't that many credible reasons to be against it, honestly. If you're ok with gays you should probably be ok with gay marriage. I guess unless you don't support any marriage at all, like you apparently do, but that's a completely odd and different conversation to have.

My wording did not go as far as to say finding a republican that didn't want to eliminate gays was hard, lol. Yeah I meant to word the second part to refer to "LGBT rights" again rather than "LGBT people" in general, but still. We do have a very liberal and hard lined stance here on that. Look at that trans thread graveyard a while back.


how dare you
 

FLEABttn

Banned
Of course, those questions are very hard, and difficult to support, which is why I assume we don't see them very often.

It's hard to have a results based policy discussion when different economic and political followings have their own normative beliefs that are incompatible with one another. The conversations end up being uninteresting as various sides will rule things out outright, results be damned.

Like, some years ago, JD said that he didn't care if the results of his beliefs led to people having shittier lives because the state not doing damn near anything was more important. There's not an interesting policy conversation in there.
 
however in Milwaukee and Boston the majority of Republicans I met had zero issues with homosexuals. Since we're quantifying anecdotal evidence, I'd estimate that 75% of the Republicans under 40 that I know support gay marriage. 95% support an end to DADT.

The other side of that coin.

1mrrie.jpg

26opqy.jpg
 

pigeon

Banned
This seems logical, but an attempt to remain even keeled seems appropriate. This does not mean setting up a false "fair and balanced" equivalency; but it does mean we shouldn't denigrate how terrible Drudge report is, and then immediately turn around and post a HuffPo piece without a shred of irony or self reflection.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, based on posting history, we all already have our RSS feeds set to TPM, so we don't need to post them here every time. If it's really a big deal it'll show up on a less partisan site soon enough.
 

RDreamer

Member
how dare you

:p

Personally I would be ok with states getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and just issuing everyone civil unions. But that wouldn't work at all anymore. That solution probably would have only worked if we started there. Now it would just end up with old people ragging about how someone's taking away their marriage or something. I'm not sure if that's the stance you have or if it's something else altogether.


Another thing to keep in mind is that, based on posting history, we all already have our RSS feeds set to TPM, so we don't need to post them here every time. If it's really a big deal it'll show up on a less partisan site soon enough.

I usually try and find the sources and link those if it was something I found on TPM or Thinkprogress or something. I may have been getting lazy with that, though. I never go to HuffPo and DailyKos is a mess. I think I've actually posted some things that were linked from Drudge here, too, lol.
 

eznark

Banned
^ More or less.

The other side of that coin.

http://www.abload.de/img/1mrrie.jpg[/IMG
[IMG]http://www.abload.de/img/26opqy.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]

Yes, if he had said "good luck finding a Republican in Mississippi who doesn't want to drag gays from their bumper" I would not have batted an eye.
 
I went to high school with conservatives. Hell, I remember my teachers outright ragging on Clinton all day. I went to a private lutheran college that was EXTRAORDINARILY Republican.

Same here. I went to an all boys seminary school run and taught by mostly priests (went to Mass every morning), and it heavily skewed conservative. And my history teacher would rant about Clinton and Democrats every day. Back then, i was rather impressionable, as were most of the students, and we didn't really give a damn about politics....so we just took everything they told us as gospel without any dissent.
 
The problem, really, is that alot of the conservatives that have been on GAF over the years were not exactly the cream of the conservative crop. Kosmo was incredibly stubborn. JayDubya was so simultaneously extreme and ideologically fixed that arguing with him had become practically impossible. drakesfortune was more interested in driving into the thread and sniping once in a while than actually contributing anything. That one dude was more interested in showing off how many econ terms he knew and torturing charts to make them say whatever he wanted than in honest debate. SomeDude, if he can be called conservative, was just fuckin' crazy all around. Etc.

Somebody like JoeBoy is probably the best representative of the average, reasonably-informed conservative, but I don't blame him for not contributing to the thread much anymore. And from what I can recall, there hasn't been a hyper-intellectual Buckley type to tangle with the likes of EV. So ultimately, the lack of conservative counterpoints is partly PoliGAF's fault, but it's just partly the luck of the draw.
 

Nert

Member
Normally I love more policy focused discussions, but we are heading into the big election "season" if you will, so it makes sense that most of this thread shifts its discussion toward politics as politics rather than policy.

This is why I'm not really participating much at the moment. I love policy discussion, but I hate politics. Even setting aside the link-dumping and the boring logo photoshops I've seen in other threads ("get it guys? R-MONEY, hah!"), I don't find dissecting each individual opinion poll as it's released to be interesting. Some people really do love following the horse race stuff, though, so to each their own.

As an aside, I've been doing a lot of political reading lately, thanks to some GAF recommendations. I recently finished The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education and I'm about halfway through The New Jim Crow. While both have been good reads and very informative, it's disheartening to see just how deeply entrenched these types of issues are. In a time where people are discussing how polarized our political parties are, there is a lot of bi-partisan consensus around major policy directions (fighting the "War on Drugs," promoting charter schools and testing as the tools to fix education) that don't appear to be working, to put it lightly.
 
PoliGAF is one big DNC linkdump, I am afraid. Wondering how entertaining the election actually will be if all we get 24/7 is how evil Romney/Ryan are for the next 3 months.

I hate both parties and have hated them equally for some time. But the past 2-4 years the GOP has gone off the rails and for the first time I'm against one party more than another.

I'm sorry, but the GOP has actively tried to stunt the economy with the sole purpose of beating Obama. And now they're proposing to make life harder on the lower and middle class to make things easier for the wealthy. And they're blatant and direct about it.

What you're witnessing here are people who are more active and generally more upset with the status quo and the GOP position comes off as vile. And I haven't even touched on their anti-gay equal rights, creationism, etc bullshit.

Even GWB threw crumbs at the middle class. Showed empathy. I think it's very hard to be an informed voter and not upper class and still support the current GOP platform and you're seeing that play itself out here.
 
As an aside, I've been doing a lot of political reading lately, thanks to some GAF recommendations. I recently finished The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education and I'm about halfway through The New Jim Crow. While both have been good reads and very informative, it's disheartening to see just how deeply entrenched these types of issues are. In a time where people are discussing how polarized our political parties are, there is a lot of bi-partisan consensus around major policy directions (fighting the "War on Drugs," promoting charter schools and testing as the tools to fix education) that don't appear to be working, to put it lightly.
It seems to me like the issues that both parties coalesce around as bipartisan, common sense compromise etc. whatever are the worst of them. The policy is ineffective and no one has a debate about it.
 

codhand

Member
How are blacks more bigoted than other races?

He just means blacks generally are equally as bad about supporting gay marriage, that is until O began to tip the scales recently. Look at the proposition in Cali two years back, with republican cries for liberals to blame blacks instead of conservatives for the shooting down of a gay marriage act.
 
partially deep rooted conservative faiths engrained in their culture that continually discuss the evils of homosexuality

the answer is almost always religion

The notion that blacks are more againts LBGT rights than whites or any other race is an urban legend. Statistically speaking.
 
The notion that blacks are more againts LBGT rights than whites or any other race is an urban legend. Statistically speaking.
They were slightly more against gay marriage than other racial groups, but since Obama's gay marriage announcement they seem to have come around.

I think people like to point it out for the irony more than anything.
 

Opiate

Member
Have there been any studies, yet, of education level vs. political affiliation or presidential choice yet?

Last election was the first point in some time where Democrats held an advantage in voters with 4 year college degrees in quite some time; I'd be interested to see if and how significantly that regresses. They have long maintained a significant advantage for post graduate students, however.
 
So with the Ryan VP pick the real question is what does this do to the Gary Johnson ticket? It seems that Eznark will hold true unless somthing unfortunate happens to Mitt. Is that the same for the rest of Garys 6%?
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Talking about conservatives of value within this thread, I didn't see anyone mention two of my favourites; 'Jackson50' and 'el retorno de los sapos'. Both of those are some of the best here at articulating a conservative yet intellectual vision.

The problem, as Black Mamba partly addressed, is that the Republican party no longer represents conservatism but a peculiar and extremist blend of hate speech, religious extremism and libertarianism.

There is very little intellectual rigour or coherency to their platform, hence it is very difficult to find posters that are of value on the forum. Heck the party itself is struggling to find anyway with a sensible or coherent vision.
 
THing that pisses me off about the GOP is that they aren't even the LEAST bit subtle about their intentions and yet somehow they've managed to fool their constituents hook line and sinker.

It infuriates me.
 

eznark

Banned
So with the Ryan VP pick the real question is what does this do to the Gary Johnson ticket? It seems that Eznark will hold true unless somthing unfortunate happens to Mitt. Is that the same for the rest of Garys 6%?

Ryan voted for the bailouts and against gay marriage. This won't have any appreciable affect, especially as a VP.

In 2016, I fully expect most libertarians to bite the bullet and vote for him.
 

eznark

Banned
Talking about conservatives of value within this thread, I didn't see anyone mention two of my favourites; 'Jackson50' and 'el retorno de los sapos'. Both of those are some of the best here at articulating a conservative yet intellectual vision.

The problem, as Black Mamba partly addressed, is that the Republican party no longer represents conservatism but a peculiar and extremist blend of hate speech, religious extremism and libertarianism.

There is very little intellectual rigour or coherency to their platform, hence it is very difficult to find posters that are of value on the forum. Heck the party itself is struggling to find anyway with a sensible or coherent vision.

Woah, I missed a conversion?!
 

RDreamer

Member
Talking about conservatives of value within this thread, I didn't see anyone mention two of my favourites; 'Jackson50' and 'el retorno de los sapos'. Both of those are some of the best here at articulating a conservative yet intellectual vision.

The problem, as Black Mamba partly addressed, is that the Republican party no longer represents conservatism but a peculiar and extremist blend of hate speech, religious extremism and libertarianism.

There is very little intellectual rigour or coherency to their platform, hence it is very difficult to find posters that are of value on the forum. Heck the party itself is struggling to find anyway with a sensible or coherent vision.

Jackson50's a conservative?
 

Wilsongt

Member
Have there been any studies, yet, of education level vs. political affiliation or presidential choice yet?

Last election was the first point in some time where Democrats held an advantage in voters with 4 year college degrees in quite some time; I'd be interested to see if and how significantly that regresses. They have long maintained a significant advantage for post graduate students, however.

Here is something about IQ...

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

And, unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the south with low IQs.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Jackson50's a conservative?



By his own admission, yes:

Almost. I'm a conservative. Yeah.
Precisely! Speaking of which, I remember debating the topic with someone in the thread who predicted a compromise would be brokered before summer. Well, no.

It is possible he was being dry here, as is his wont, but it doesn't make sense to me in the context of the post. Furthermore, it is not incongruous with his expressed opinions.
 
LOL

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) argued the popular tea party position that state legislators, not citizens, should choose U.S. senators – at a campaign event urging voters to choose him as a Senate nominee.

From the Payson Roundup:

Flake advocated additional deep cuts in taxes and spending and the wholesale repeal of federal regulations. He said he opposed any restrictions on guns, ammunition or magazines, despite a string of recent shootings. He also said he favored eliminating both the federal Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He even said he preferred having state legislatures appoint U.S. Senators instead of the voters, a system that changed in 1912 with the adoption of the 17th Amendment.
 
The notion that blacks are more againts LBGT rights than whites or any other race is an urban legend. Statistically speaking.
Equivalent education and income, this is correct. However, as education and income goes down, religiosity goes up, and so does anti-gay sentiment. The reputation is an afterimage of the demographic reality of the average black situation vs. the average white situation. A larger percentage of blacks are religious because a larger percentage of blacks are poor and poorly educated.
 

RDreamer

Member

Weird, I had to look at the date on that article, because I swear he's said that same thing a while back and got criticized for it then.

The Republican xenophobia and belief in American exceptionalism has really become slightly alarming as the world continues to become far more interconnected. I mean I don't think we should be shy from criticizing where things may have failed elsewhere and how they compare to us, but at the same time those in high positions (or campaigning to be in high positions) should be a bit diplomatic about it, because a lot of these people are our allies or at least could be.
 

Opiate

Member
Continuing on my own post from earlier, I'm often surprised by how little discussion there is about the Republican Brain Drain. It is a real phenomenon that few here seemed to have been interested exploring outside broad, sweeping comments about how stupid Republicans are, and so forth.

Here is an article from David Frum's website in the 2010 election cycle that does some pretty deep analysis.

The article notes that Republicans still do above average with college educated people in general, but that the trends become alarming when you begin to segregate "college" in any great degree; the better the schools get, the increasingly likely they are to be liberal. Further, it provides evidence that this was not always the case; as recently as Eisenhowever, Ivy League colleges were majoratively Republican. A relevant quotation:

Overall, the picture that emerges is alarming for Republicans and conservatives. In good universities across the nation, students flee the Republican Party. And the better the universities, it seems, the more drastic the trend.

To simplify: Republicans have gone from having a clear advantage among top students in the decade following the Eisenhower administration, to being competitive under the Nixon and Ford administrations, and from being an energetic minority during Reagan and Bush Sr. to being almost eradicated today.

So if we accept that the trend is drastic, that it is real and applies to most of the top universities – and I think that is reasonable – the next question is: How did this come about?

Some on the right see in these numbers a brainwashing effort from “liberal elites” on Ivy League institutions, rather than a brain drain from the Republican Party. People like David Horowitz try to gather evidence of how liberals conspire against conservative professors and students. To me, these accusations seem not only often to lack any real evidence, but also to lack substantial explanatory power, even when correct. Even conservative professors find themselves surrounded by students who vote for the Democrats. Furthermore, while students have fled the Republican Party, they do not seem to have moved very far to the left. The Weathermen are long gone. Hippies, utopian Marxists, socialists, anarchists – groups that were prominent in the 1960s and 1970s – are marginal today. Rather, today’s best students identify as slightly to the left of center, policy-wise liberals who massively prefer the Democratic party.

If not brainwashing, then what? Partly, it has to do with a change in the youth vote overall – however, that is hardly much of a comfort to Republicans, but rather a source of additional worry, since it bodes ill for Republicans over the coming decades. This change, in turn, has to do with cultural changes relating to gender, sexuality and the role of religion in public debate.

Partly it has to do with the inclusion of new groups in top education institutions, first Blacks and Hispanics, followed by Asians over the last few decades. However, in the case of Asian students it could be argued that Asians trend towards the Democrats precisely because they have higher quality education.

Let me advance another hypothesis. Today’s top students are motivated less by enthusiasm for Democrats and much more by revulsion from Republicans. It’s not the students who have changed so much. It’s the Republicans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom