T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Oh you mean a young, anti-establishment, internet party? They'd be working on full net neutrality and ending the NSA of course. Maybe not my priorities, but all still noble goals.
-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Oh you mean a young, anti-establishment, internet party? They'd be working on full net neutrality and ending the NSA of course. Maybe not my priorities, but all still noble goals.
I was making a joke about how we would've legalized weed if we had that party, but if we're taking that question seriously, I'd imagine they would go for legalizing stuff like shrooms and acid and dismantling the DEA.
All worthy causes.
Meh. Conservative humor falls pretty damn flat.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/54e4166e03benghazi-investigation.jpg
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/54e4166e03benghazi-investigation.jpg
Cute.
That's supposed to be funny?
Bazinga.
zero shift
Banned
The Nazis just get absorbed by the two bigger parties. FPTP has a huge flaw in stagnation and keeping away parties from change. Fringe parties are just that...fringe they win hardly any seats.
The Susan Rice pop-in got me.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Right. For instance right now the republican party has to cater to neo-confederates somewhat to get their votes so they can maybe get the extra 2% popular vote needed to pass the 50% mark and start getting the things they really want done. So even if they want to pass immigration reform they can't without losing that vote, which might be enough to give them no control whatsoever, even though that vote is a small percentage overall.
Separate the racists into a separate neo-confederate party and republicans have a lot less reason to chase those votes, and would rather work together with democrats to pass immigration reform, while maybe working with the neo-confederates on the other less radical ideas that both parties do agree with, to get that stuff done as well.
So basically it speeds up the whole process allowing things to run more smoothly while actually doing more to push the more radical ideas into a corner.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Seriously? I mean seriously!?
I hope you just misheard, because that's the 100% exact opposite of what the whole motivation of the shooting was. It was basically MRA "nice guy syndrom" hatred taken to the extreme.
He was being treated for mental illness and his gun was bought completely legally, so they really can't deflect to either of those things like they usually do. And the only culture they can deflect the issue to is basically the exact same culture feminists talk about when they talk about rape culture.
I can imagine they're struggling on how to frame this.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Who knew homosexual impulses for a guy went hand in hand with being rejected by females.
>.<
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-guest-diagnoses-ucsb-shooter-with-homosexual-impulses/
Right there. She says "Maybe he was upset that the women were taking all the men away."
What a bunch of dip shits
zero shift
Banned
Both parties are essentially big tent parties.
The Republican party consists of: traditional conservatives, libertarians, neo-confederates, and the tea party.
The Democratic party consists of: centrists, liberals, blue dog democrats, and just any group left of center.
We could easily have half a dozen different parties in congress that received more than 5% of the vote.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Which would basically allow for enough diversity that you can actually maybe have a chance at negotiating with the parties slightly left or slightly right of you depending on the bill you're trying to pass. But with the two big tents it's basically impossible to negotiate on anything. Even before the hyper-partisan era of today, it was always more difficult than it should be to pass bills which a good majority of the people wanted.
speculawyer
Member
speculawyer
Member
Meh. I'd rather have those extremists. They'll only win 1 or 2 seats ever. And when they are out in the open they are much easier to track.
Our system is too boring and too limited. We are stuck between a choice of somewhat competent and crazy.
Hey, they nailed CBS. Give them some credit.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Electoral proportionality isn't really correlated with extremist party success at all.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Rasmussen with more fake polls that are obviously lies
Maybe they realized they were off significantly in the Republicans' favor in 2012, so they've changed course and are now equally off significantly in the Democrats' favor.
I remember this guy from the last election. He's got my vote!
JesseEwiak
Member
Honestly, the Nazi's in Europe probably still have a more support for a social welfare state (for the right people) than most Republican's do. You have to remember, outside of a small fringe, there is no right-wing uber-capitalist and uber-socially conservative party in most of Europe.
Most of the "right-wing" parties in Europe have run on reversing spending cuts, especially to pensions and other forms of aid to the old age, going after big business, and so on. For example, most of the areas the FN are strongest in France used to vote for the Socialist's back in the 70's and 80's.
speculawyer
Member
His hat is a boot. Your argument is invalid.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Surprise the war isn't ending this year!
The war is "over". We're just leaving troops for "security reasons".
RustyNails
Member
My concern for the war is way, way less as long as our troops are not in the frontline and its not costing us trillion a year to maintain.
RustyNails
Member
You mean like The War Of Northern Aggression??? Btw check out the civil war thread in OT. Its a hoot.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They're still 'on the frontlines' and they will still die
10,000 isn't ending the war. Its prolonging it.
GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS
I knew this is the direction the narrative would take as opposed to mental illness, which this kid CLEARLY suffered from a spectrum of.
Realistically, are pro-gun advocates against restrictions on gun ownership/posession by mentally ill/challenged individuals? I always see the touted fear of slippery slopes with gun registries and fitness tests but that's about it.
Yes. The NRA dumps tons of money into making sure gun manufacturers can sell stock as easily as possible.
They have to shift the narrative away from guns somehow.
speculawyer
Member
This pisses me off. I guess he is worried about a 2016 with Afghanistan collapsing into chaos. But so what? Let it collapse. It is a sham to just keep shoveling money and blood into Afghanistan just so that we can "not lose" in Afghanistan (but we can't win).
PhoenixDark
Banned
Change you can believe in.
I understand a force was going to be left there as we did in Iraq, but 10k...that's not a counter terrorism force, it's a fucking army. I guess one could say it's good that Obama isn't letting ideology cloud his assessment of things on the ground but let's face it: things on the ground will always be shit in Afghanistan, does that mean we should stay forever?
Great way to fire up the base for midterms btw.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Didn't Obama say he didn't want to end the war in Afghanistan in 2008?
90% of the disillusionment with Obama is people not paying attention to what his positions were and instead projecting all their hopes and ideals onto him
NYCmetsfan
Banned
its 2014
6 years later.
He said we were gonna end the war by the end of this year after the surge (which has accomplished what btw?), he lied. I'm not mad at us not being out by now but I'm upset our longest war has at least 2 more years and probably longer
speculawyer
Member
Climate change is more polarizing than abortion and guns.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/27/3441360/climate-change-controversy/
This is crazy. No matter what, this issue will eventually be decided . . . it make take decades but eventually the truth will out. And someone will be on the wrong side of history
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/27/3441360/climate-change-controversy/
This is crazy. No matter what, this issue will eventually be decided . . . it make take decades but eventually the truth will out. And someone will be on the wrong side of history
. . . like they were with gay rights.
Climate change is more polarizing than abortion and guns.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/27/3441360/climate-change-controversy/
This is crazy. No matter what, this issue will eventually be decided . . . it make take decades but eventually the truth will out. And someone will be on the wrong side of history. . . like they were with gay rights.
I am more surprised by how split the country is over the half black man in office. I said goddamn.
However, I am not all that surprised by the climate change shit. When you make it a habit of forcing it to be a wedge issue, people are going to take a stance. The GOP has done all they can to make it a wedge issue since they are losing the fight against gays.
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . What were the differences with Clinton? You gotta expect the one party not to like the other party's guy.
Where did the Climate issue come from though? At one point Newt did that climate change commercial with Nancy Pelosi and John McCain had a cap & trade bill. But now the GOP has gone fundamentalist over this issue. Is it from the base? Is it from the fossil fuel lobby? How did it become so political again?
I've been listening to some Gwynne Dyer Climate Wars speeches from 2007 and he thought that was the high-water mark for the climate change deniers . . . and it did seem to be changing. But it has now become more polarized than ever. And it is spreading . . . Australia has a denier PM. Canada is not much better. But I suspect that is because both those countries have huge coal and oil businesses, respectively.
PhoenixDark
Banned
There's a view that it's a hoax to generate money for green energy scams. And of course the issue of coal, which is legitimate; if you're in a town or city built around the coal industry you probably hate Obama for good reason.
Ultimately I think most people don't care about climate when compared to the short term economic costs of addressing it.
Probably the Cock brothers doing.
Yep:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/
So while politically the GOP is against the idea of global climate change because they are guzzling big oil's cock, their framing of the issue makes their constituents who are not nearly as savvy when it comes to understanding reasons, just go off the anti science deep end.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167006/obama-fifth-year-job-approval-ratings-among-polarized.aspx
Note that it took 4 years before the huge partisan divide happened for Bush, while Obama's approval was divided from the absolute start. The divide for Bush lessened over the 6th, 7th, and 8th years because republicans started deciding to disapprove as well. I wonder if Democrats will do that for Obama.
speculawyer
Member
Those dicks are really pissing me off. Can't they at least follow some of their own beliefs? They are supposedly so science oriented and they are supposedly very Libertarian. (There is a guy who wrote a book about the Kochs that is making the talk show rounds. Here is the Fresh Air interview.) If that is true their positions should be more:
-Pro-gay rights
-Take climate change seriously
-More liberal on immigration
-Pro-choice
-Anti-foreign entanglements
But they back the GOP to the hilt even though the GOP does not support those positions at all.
They are basically just greedy pricks. Don't talk to me about your alleged Libertarian beliefs, you just support anti-tax and anti-regulation stuff out of pure self-financial interest while actively working against positions you allegedly believe in.
They're just making it obvious that they shouldn't be allowed on Noah's Ark 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Well, the problem with this is that any positive action taken in the face of warnings actually diminishes the chances of the warned consequences fully playing out, undermining the credibility of the warnings in the first place.
Like Y2K. Massive resources deployed to ensure nothing bad went wrong. And when nothing major went wrong, everybody was like "what were we worried about?"
I could totally see climate change deniers suggesting expenditure and efforts had been a total waste of time and effort if such efforts actually resolved the problem soundly.
The flipside of being able to say "I told you so" while we all wade around neck deep in sea water isn't going to be a great outcome.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked