• 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.
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
So here is a question I was thinking about as I was wading through the abortion thread on the other forum:

When will the Right abandon the culture wars?

I mean, what is up with this war against abortion? No one has come and taken their guns yet and they still believe that -- any day now -- Obama is coming to take their guns. Gays are allowed to openly serve in the military and hey, guess what, our armed services are doing just fine. And some states even allow gays to get married!

There has to be an end, right? I find it hard to envision this continuing for another 25 years. At some point, they'll have to embrace their more moderate, intellectual, centrist candidates like Huntsman, right? Do they realize that the population of middle-aged and old cranky, conservative white people isn't going to be the majority forever?
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
W

worldrunover

Member
CharlieDigital said:
So here is a question I was thinking about as I was wading through the abortion thread on the other forum:

When will the Right abandon the culture wars?

I mean, what is up with this war against abortion? No one has come and taken their guns yet and they still believe that -- any day now -- Obama is coming to take their guns. Gays are allowed to openly serve in the military and hey, guess what, our armed services are doing just fine. And some states even allow gays to get married!

There has to be an end, right? I find it hard to envision this continuing for another 25 years. At some point, they'll have to embrace their more moderate, intellectual, centrist candidates like Huntsman, right? Do they realize that the population of middle-aged and old cranky white people isn't going to be the majority forever?
Click to expand...

They'll create new old cranky white people. Politics through fear is as old as time, and as long as people keep voting based on it, they aren't stopping anytime soon.
 
B

Brinbe

Member
CharlieDigital said:
So here is a question I was thinking about as I was wading through the abortion thread on the other forum:

When will the Right abandon the culture wars?

I mean, what is up with this war against abortion? No one has come and taken their guns yet and they still believe that -- any day now -- Obama is coming to take their guns. Gays are allowed to openly serve in the military and hey, guess what, our armed services are doing just fine. And some states even allow gays to get married!

There has to be an end, right? I find it hard to envision this continuing for another 25 years. At some point, they'll have to embrace their more moderate, intellectual, centrist candidates like Huntsman, right? Do they realize that the population of middle-aged and old cranky, conservative white people isn't going to be the majority forever?
Click to expand...

I'd say when the evangelical right's no longer such a powerful coalition in the party... but I don't know, if demographics further marginalize that core base, I think they drift further and further rightward. Because at that point, what moderate/intellectual/centrists will be left?
 
E

eznark

Banned
codhand said:
Dayum, slidewinder was really feeling himself this morning, just read his last few posts. =?
Click to expand...

Jesus what a clown. I disagree with most of you on most things, but non of you are sub-human in my book. Except EV, and that's just because it's clear he is a spam bot.

Jooney said:
I know you despise the GAF Ezra circle jerk but have a read of the Fergurson's Newsweek article - it's downright laughable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was atrocious. What I didn't get was the Charlie masturbatory reaction to every paragraph as though it was somehow a revelatory criticism.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
eznark said:
Yeah, it was atrocious. What I didn't get was the Charlie masturbatory reaction to every paragraph as though it was somehow a revelatory criticism.
Click to expand...

Oh I reveled in it.

2Ag85.gif
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
eznark said:
Jesus what a clown. I disagree with most of you on most things, but non of you are sub-human in my book. Except EV, and that's just because it's clear he is a spam bot.
Click to expand...

On cue:

CharlieDigital said:
So Niall Ferguson is the Harold Camping of our Debt Apocalypse?

Almost since the crisis began, Ferguson has pushed a very specific theory with a very specific prediction: The bond markets, he has said, are going to revolt against American debt. And if that doesn’t happen, inflation is going to run amok.

As Joe Weisenthal details, back in September 2009, Ferguson was warning that “long-term rates have risen by 167 basis points in the space of five months,” which “settled a rather public argument” Ferguson had been conducting with Paul Krugman, in which Ferguson argued the markets were turning on our debt and Krugman argued that they were not. So who was right? Well, the interest rate on 10-year Treasuries was 3.73 percent when Ferguson wrote that column. Today, they’re 1.81 percent. Point, Krugman.​
Click to expand...

The funniest part about this is that none of these people understand bond interest rates. Krugman was right by accident. The reality is that the government simply dictates the interest rates.
 
E

eznark

Banned
So I just skimmed some of the politico ebook on the Obama campaign and a lot of it seems completely within the realm of believable, certainly as credible as Game Change. Out of curiosity, do you guys ever feel ashamed that you only accept the credibility of anonymous sources when they conform to your world view?

i.e. what makes Mark Halperin more credible than Politico, especially given Halperin's history?
 
D

DynamicG

Member
eznark said:
So I just skimmed some of the politico ebook on the Obama campaign and a lot of it seems completely within the realm of believable, certainly as credible as Game Change. Out of curiosity, do you guys ever feel ashamed that you only accept the credibility of anonymous sources when they conform to your world view?

i.e. what makes Mark Halperin more credible than Politico, especially given Halperin's history?
Click to expand...

Who are these mysterious "you guys" that you are pointing at. There are lots of folks in poligaf that are liberal shills but not everyone. For me, the source is an important part, but how I decide the voracity of information is usually a mix of factors. Turmoil in the Obama campaign, totally believable. Disorganization in the Romney campaign, also sounds like it could be legit.

Better question, Are you going to name names or just continue to shotgun strawman the thread?
 
E

eznark

Banned
DynamicG said:
Who are these mysterious "you guys" that you are pointing at. There are lots of folks in poligaf that are liberal shills but not everyone. For me, the source is an important part, but how I decide the voracity of information is usually a mix of factors. Turmoil in the Obama campaign, totally believable. Disorganization in the Romney campaign, also sounds like it could be legit.

Better question, Are you going to name names or just continue to shotgun strawman the thread?
Click to expand...

The "you guys" are the like 8 regular posters in this thread. Specifically to this topic, the "you guys" are the handful of folks who denounced the Obama campaign ebook yeaterday as trash because it was written by Politico staffers. I would have thought that was obvious given the context of my remarks.

I don't recognize you, so feel free to exempt yourself from my blanket statements until further notice.

And no, I'm not going to name names because it's tedious. If you'd like to go back a few pages and pick out the specific few posters who brushed off the book, go nuts.
 
D

DasRaven

Member
speculawyer said:
What exactly has Obama done that has got them so crazy? Gays in the military is the only thing that I could see that he has actually done to piss them off.
The rest is probably imaginary (no big tax hikes, no taking guns away, etc.)
Click to expand...

These are "last gasp" politics. The traditional GOP demographics are falling away and they can see that fundamental reform of their coalition is going to happen soon.

But, before they are forced to change, they are going to entrench in their long-held views and give it one last try. This is 2012 in a nutshell.
If they lose, especially with their idealized business manager & monetary intellectual leader on the ticket, the wilderness awaits.

"Do not go gentle into that good night." -Thomas
 
E

eznark

Banned
DasRaven said:
These are "last gasp" politics. The traditional GOP demographics are falling away and they can see that fundamental reform of their coalition is going to happen soon.

But, before they are forced to change, they are going to entrench in their long-held views and give it one last try. This is 2012 in a nutshell. If they lose, especially with their idealized business manager & monetary intellectual leader on the ticket, and the wilderness awaits.

"Do not go gentle into that good night." -Thomas
Click to expand...

I like how every election is now win or wilderness. The GOP was relegated to the wilderness after 2008 too. Someone should have told them before the 2010 elections.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
eznark said:
Jesus what a clown. I disagree with most of you on most things, but non of you are sub-human in my book. Except EV, and that's just because it's clear he is a spam bot.
Click to expand...
I consider you sub-human, but the cause stems not from our political disagreement. Rather, you're a Badgers and Packers fan. Nevertheless, I always regard you cordially.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
eznark said:
I like how every election is now win or wilderness. The GOP was relegated to the wilderness after 2008 too. Someone should have told them before the 2010 elections.
Click to expand...

In 2008, one could claim that McCain was at least still a candidate in the mold of Republicans past (at least until he picked Palin).

2012? A Mormon? Former -- relatively liberal -- governor of MA? Flip-flopper on any number of issues (including abortion)? The guy who once claimed and proudly proclaimed that he built the prototype for what would become a model of Obamacare?

Not saying I agree with DasRaven, but truly strange times.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Definitely, and I would argue that a Romney win would potentially marginalize the True Believers like the billboard folks in VA more than an Obama win. You aren't really "in the wilderness" until your own party abandons you...like the Goreacle.

Jackson50 said:
I consider you sub-human, but the cause stems not from our political disagreement. Rather, you're a Badgers and Packers fan. Nevertheless, I always regard you cordially.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I always forget you consider yourself a sports fan. I look forward to seeing you in the NFL thread in a decade Wisconsin castoffs like an old and busted Bielema and a broken down Rodgers lead your team to marginal relevance and you decide it'd be nice to pay attention again.

But yes, I appreciate that we can treat each other so well despite our differences.
 
D

DasRaven

Member
eznark said:
I like how every election is now win or wilderness. The GOP was relegated to the wilderness after 2008 too. Someone should have told them before the 2010 elections.
Click to expand...

To borrow from Sen. Trent Lott. If they had gone into the wilderness then, perhaps they "wouldn't have all the problems they have now."
Is it your opinion that they shift they made in 2010 was good for the GOP brand and future? If so, why is the GOP desperately trying to stop eligible voters from voting?
 
E

eznark

Banned
DasRaven said:
To borrow from Sen. Trent Lott. If they had gone into the wilderness then, perhaps they "wouldn't have all the problems they have now."
Is it your opinion that they shift they made in 2010 was good for the GOP brand and future? If so, why is the GOP desperately trying to stop eligible voters from voting?
Click to expand...

Voter ID isn't new. States across the country have been trying to get it passed for a decade+. The 2010 tidal wave simply gave them the majority they lacked in a lot of states to finally get it done.

You're giving the tea party far, far too much credit for policy changes that weren't policy changes at all. It's the same old GOP platform, they just now have the majority to act on it.

In my opinion, the shift they made in 2010 was a massively understated positive for their future prospects. Controlling State houses in the years immediately following a census gives you control for a decade plus. It's a big deal that I don't think will be understood for years.
 
D

DasRaven

Member
eznark said:
Voter ID isn't new. States across the country have been trying to get it passed for a decade+. The 2010 tidal wave simply gave them the majority they lacked in a lot of states to finally get it done.

You're giving the tea party far, far too much credit for policy changes that weren't policy changes at all. It's the same old GOP platform, they just now have the majority to act on it.

In my opinion, the shift they made in 2010 was a massively understated positive for their future prospects. Controlling State houses in the years immediately following a census gives you control for a decade plus. It's a big deal that I don't think will be understood for years.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point, I'm asking why any party should push for a reduction of the voting population at any time, for any reason, if their ideas are palatable to the majority of the populous?
They'd just win by larger margins if that were the case. I dealt with voter intimidation and restriction in N.C. in the Jesse Helms era, so trust me I know it's nothing new.

I do agree with you on the strategic victory of 2010 post-census. I also see a significant advantage gained by the slow-walking of the Obama administration's judicial nominees.
Should the GOP win this cycle, the payoff will be HUGE! Especially if the revenge of Bork comes to the judiciary.
 
E

eznark

Banned
DasRaven said:
You're missing my point, I'm asking why any party should push for a reduction of the voting population at any time, for any reason, if their ideas are palatable to the majority of the populous?
They'd just win by larger margins if that were the case. I dealt with voter intimidation and restriction in N.C. in the Jesse Helms era, so trust me I know it's nothing new.

I do agree with you on the strategic victory of 2010 post-census. I also see a significant advantage gained by the slow-walking of the Obama administration's judicial nominees.
Click to expand...

It's cheaper to win elections if you disenfranchise the opposition. And if that's been your plan for decades, why abandon it when voters have given you the opportunity to enact it?
 
F

Four_Chamber

Member
Man, if I didn't love George R.R. Martin already

Martin, an avid Obama supporter, continues his blog rant, saying, "The people behind these efforts at disenfranchising large groups of voters (the young, the old, the black, the brown) are not Republicans, since clearly they have scant regard for our republic or its values. They are oligarchs and racists clad in the skins of dead elephants."
Click to expand...

Contrast that with the crass language of the MNF idiot or Ted Nugent.
 
E

eznark

Banned
CharlieDigital said:
You're stating a fact, but sidestepping his point.
Click to expand...

He asked why they would still push voter ID, and I said to more cheaply/easily maintain power. What am I sidestepping?

His point was that if 2010 was good for them they wouldn't have to push voter ID. My point is that voter ID was one of the issues that energized the base and got them elected in the first place. Why Gitmo a campaign promise you can so easily keep?
 
D

DasRaven

Member
eznark said:
He asked why they would still push voter ID, and I said to more cheaply/easily maintain power. What am I sidestepping?

His point was that if 2010 was good for them they wouldn't have to push voter ID. My point is that voter ID was one of the issues that energized the base and got them elected in the first place. Why Gitmo a campaign promise you can so easily keep?
Click to expand...

Just to close this, no, that wasn't my point, and I'll disengage here.

My point was why are they disenfranchising anyone if they believe in the power of their ideas?
Is their opposition to dumb/poor/whatever to understand the benefits or are the benefits illusory?
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
eznark said:
He asked why they would still push voter ID, and I said to more cheaply/easily maintain power. What am I sidestepping?

His point was that if 2010 was good for them they wouldn't have to push voter ID. My point is that voter ID was one of the issues that energized the base and got them elected in the first place. Why Gitmo a campaign promise you can so easily keep?
Click to expand...

His point is that the Republican worldview is increasingly unpalatable to the general public (not the voting public) outside of a few issues and that to stay in power, Republicans have to come up with ways to disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters. So you addressed the disenfranchisement, but did not address that the policies they are pushing for have no future based on current population and cultural trends (gay marriage, immigration, etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom