Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
aha. here it is.
"“Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus,” "
1: Rush, your opinion is never humble.
2: apparently Rush believes most of america wants everything handed to them on a platter.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:50:00 AM by Midgetsnowman
One thing I also read is that pundits are citing the GOP's attempts at voter disenfranchisement as one of the key things triggering their dramatic loss in Pennsylvania, as voters went to the polls in outrage.
Admitting that they lost fair and square would be admitting that their policies are fundamentally disliked by Americans, ergo it might mean they'd have to accept being wrong.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:50:51 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It really is up to the GOP to mend this, if they wish to even try.
I'm not sure I follow you, Fighteer. If you're correct, and the Right can only gain Congress or the White House by abandoning its political priorities ... then what's the point of having Congress or the White House? The private movie theatre? The cafeteria's bean soup?
![]()
Conservatives lost yesterday. We good?
edited 7th Nov '12 11:51:58 AM by Jhimmibhob
It's at the very least time for a hard discussion about political priorities.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Jhim: I'm saying that social conservative policies are obsolete in this country and need to be dumped once and for all. If Republicans want to pose themselves as conservatives in the classical sense, they have to abandon their extremists. Otherwise the middle will continue to vote blue and all their standing on principle will amount to so much hot air.
It wouldn't hurt for them to admit to anthropogenic climate change and give up the idiotic fight against evolution, either. You know, move out of the 18th century.
Edit:
edited 7th Nov '12 11:59:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Eh, I'm in the "it's all about demographics" camp. The right has taken a very hard stance regarding immigration, and that's going to cost them a shit load of the hispanic vote, and the hispanic vote is growning.
Democracy is about the people. The interests of more and more of the people are not the interests of the Republican party. The Republican party sticking to its principles is inherently undemocratic and their being elected out of office is inherently democratic.
@Jhimm: if they stick to their priorities instead of evolving with the times, then theyll do what happens to every party that falls out of relevancy. Die on the vine.
Its happened before. The Republican party itself came about to fill a power vacuum mere years before the Cvil War when another party's relevancy ended.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:57:27 AM by Midgetsnowman
And then someone else will take their spot, as per the cycle of American politics.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.On voting third party some pages back: cutewithoutthe
:
I sort of agree with Jhim, oddly enough.
Yes, it would make sense for Republicans to become more moderate and sensible if they were rational actors determined to win elections. Honestly though, I'm not sure that's their primary motivation anymore. The regressionists are about "principle" - clownish, backwards principles, but principles nonetheless. Above all, they are hellbent on turning back time and reversing social change. If they can't win and they can't do that, they'll do the next best thing - hang on for dear life. As long as things like climate change remain an issue of contention, their ideas aren't dead yet.
So I'm really not surprised that they're going further to the right.
I'm afraid my question stands: if you're correct, then there's no point in pleasing the middle. At best, the Right's rewards would be a clutch of empty political offices, manned by neutered time-servers sworn to their constituents to do little or nothing worth the doing. If the choices are as stark as you paint them, there are worse and less honorable things than what Midgetsnowman calls "dying on the vine."
However, you might be a tad overconfident in the "arrow of progress." History's more cyclical than many of us like to imagine; there are numerous examples of latitudinarian societies that rediscovered moral rigor, or even what the Left might call downright troglodytism. Today's Cavaliers may sire tomorrow's Roundheads. Athens sometimes is succeeded by Constantinople. As a certain hard-to-see gent once put it: as often as not the world moves "not like an arrow, but a boomerang."
edited 7th Nov '12 12:18:06 PM by Jhimmibhob
![]()
well, then theyre doomed to lose a lot of elections
That may be true, Jhim, but the overall progress of society is always leftward. Theres setbacks and cycles, sure. But far right rhetoric always eventually dies.
and claiming this si some stand on principle is silly. a mere 20 years ago the republican stance on principle was far different than their ideals today. They evolved to the point they are in. either they evolve again or they reach an evolutionary dead-end.
edited 7th Nov '12 12:21:53 PM by Midgetsnowman
The only thing Republicans can do now is hope that the Economy/Libya worsens so they can have a chance in 2016
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/ http://sagan4.com/forum/index.phpNot true. In communist (or claimed communist) countries, being more "liberalized" is actually more right; for example China stepping away from Maoism.
Anyway, I'm quite excited to see Elizabeth Warren (remembering her eloquent speech from DNC) as well as a new independent Angus King in the January Congress.
I wonder if Jhimm is envisioning a future wherein gay people, non-fundamentalist Christians, non-Christians, black people, Hispanics, women, scientists who believe in climate change and people living in urban areas all shrink in political representation.
Because I don't see THAT being cyclical.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.If that's the attitude they take, then the Republicans will continue to lose elections until they are no longer relevant to American politics. Of course, given the two party system, they will continue to look relevant for a long time even if they are not, but I wonder what the political environment would start to look like if Democrats routinely win 60% of the popular vote and 90% of the electoral vote.
I see only a spectacular failure of liberal policies setting things back, and given my economic and political beliefs, I don't expect that to happen. I do know that the Right expects it to happen and is actively abetting it, in the hopes that they can play the "told you so" card for a cycle or two. But we have ample historical records of prosperity under liberal governments, so the facts are not on their side.
edited 7th Nov '12 12:33:31 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Midget: Limbaugh was right, you know, though not for the reason that he thinks he is. Conservatism did not lose. It won. Now the center will move even further right as the Republican Party continues to define Obama as a liberal. Of course, conservatism would have won if Romney won, as well. This was a lose-lose election. Either the hyper-conservative candidate wins, and the country heads further right, or the moderate-conservative candidate wins, and he gets defined as a liberal, so the country heads further right. There was no win for the left in this election.
@Triv: Liberalism in China is sending it further left, socially, just not economically.
![]()
Erm, considering pretty much every major excess of the party failed miserably, I'd say their attempts to redefine conservative as even firther right killed them.
it made me want to laugh so bad at my sister's best friend who is barely middle class when she started whining that now all her money was going to disappear. I refrained because she's a nice person. Just a stupid person.
edited 7th Nov '12 12:35:27 PM by Midgetsnowman

Yeah. The problem is quite simply, the republicans hatred of non-whites is going to doom them. If they dont soften up on key policies like immigration and science denial, the non-WASP vote is going to bury them permanently.
apparently the logic was "Barry O is Like santa claus to americans. They expect him to give them free stuff they dont deserve"]
You know. Completely Ignoring who Saint Nicholas was and why he gave things to people.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:48:29 AM by Midgetsnowman