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
At a certain point it stops mattering whether these pundits believe what they are saying or not. It makes for an interesting academic conversation, of course, but in the end I think that the likelihood of O'Reilly or Rove coming out and denouncing the GOP lie machine is next to nil.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""It can be hard to judge the self-descructive qualities of the GOP as a foreigner..."
Those were the words that I started typing but actually my problem is you guys- if the Republican party is completely nuts contains very few savvy people and sowing the seeds to be defeated by New Deal Coalition Mk. 2 then it completely validates your world view and then you don't have to worry, properly worry with that clammy nervousness, about how little the Democrats fail to meet up to a new Roosevelt. I wonder is this real or this is something you tell yourself as a liberal to make yourself feel better about the fact you're unlikely the achieve anything in the next four year and you're unlikely to break the D-R presidential cycle. Do you think that they can't find somebody, somebody surprising, who has been waiting for 2016 and is already practising what they will say is the game of Primary Bullshit?
![]()
![]()
![]()
He said that it was impossible for a woman to get pregnant from rape because if it was a legitimate rape their body would shut down the pregnancy. So there was no reason to have a rape clause exception for abortion because there are no babies from rape.
He fails biology badly.
edited 20th Nov '12 3:10:39 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick@SSOT: Don't mistake our talk about the GOP as indicating that we fully support everything the Democrats are doing. Mainstream Democrats are far too center-right for our tastes — the true liberal voice in American politics is embarrassingly weak at the moment. That can only change if the GOP completes its self-destruction, though. At the moment it's sabotaging any efforts to move the political conversation in a more progressive direction.
We lament much of what the Democratic Party is doing at the moment, but it's very much a lesser of two evils situation, with a few outright good things, like support for gay rights, contraception, and even abortion.
@The Handle: The hope, as we've said before, is that the fracturing of the core Republican Party allows the political centerline to shift leftward and provide a true liberal-conservative debate in the United States.
edited 20th Nov '12 3:18:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, yes, but supposing the GOP collapses, the Overton Window switches to the left, and the Democrat party splits between those who behave like traditional Republicans and those who... what? Openly and unabashedly advocate Scandinavian socialism?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I'd call it a refreshing change, to be honest. Bring it on! But I'd settle for the type of economic policy we had in the 1940-1970 time frame plus national healthcare and a serious discussion of climate change.
edited 20th Nov '12 3:22:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"My personal theory of what will happen is that there will be a sudden migration of parties by a lot of people that will lead to the Dems, Greens, and Libertarians getting a bunch of people who make it into Congress. The Dems would then be able to successfully push through a president since their united more than their opponents, but with sizable electoral votes for the other two parties. Out of self preservation, the Green and Libertarian Congressmen will band together and pass some sort of electoral reform that would allow them to survive, and we end up with a three party system.
Either that or the Green or Libertarian parties will demolish the other, and will rise to be the second party in a two party system.
Normally, Facebook comments are only a slightly smaller source of headaches than You Tube comments, but the comments on this ThinkProgress article linked earlier (the O'Reilly one)
contained this gem:
The Right is just pissed that their preferred subgroup can no longer keep the rabble in line. And whose fault is that? To quote from Larry Wilmore: "Give us your tired, your poor d your wretched refuse? Did you think that was just the Irish?"
I think people get confused about the term "exceptional". They keep saying it like it's a good thing, when it means exactly the same as "irregular", "abnormal" and "anomalous". Plus, "American Abnormality" has Added Alliterative Appeal.
I think he just means that it's not that many generations far removed that that shit used to be real. I've been reading Richard Wright's Black Boy
, recently, and watching some Roots. Before that, when people said "yo my nigga" or "my great grandmother was the first free person in my family", I found it emotionally neutral, and there was nothing strange about a black person being named "Jonathan Jones", to give an example. Now the first makes me kind of vicariously furious, the second chills my blood, and Black people with Anglo-saxon names make me wonder about the first "Kunta Kinte" who got that name bestowedbeaten unto him. Thinking of the whole situation gives me a strange, general, undirected sense of pissed-off-ness.
edited 20th Nov '12 3:45:36 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.@Kostya; Most likely that means "forty or fifty years". Or thirty, depending on what you consider to be a middle aged person. It's just referring to the passage of time since the Civil Rights Movement. Pretty clever metaphor, actually.
Wow, when is Governor Scott himself going to get arrested? He sure does seem to have flirted with the line between legal and illegal quite closely.
I now begin to understand why people are confounded by a sane Republican with an elementary grasp of biology, history, and math.
We lament much of what the Democratic Party is doing at the moment, but it's very much a lesser of two evils situation, with a few outright good things, like support for gay rights, contraception, and even abortion.
I'm genuinely curious. Why is possible for someone to be a Democrat but not agree with everything they do, but someone can't be a Republican who disagrees with some of the more hysterical directions of the party without being "conditioned", or being "bad at labelling", or "indoctrinated"?
It was an honorBecause if nine out of ten of your policy views align with one party, and one aligns with the other party, you'd better be pretty devoted to that tenth view to call yourself a member of the second party.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"First of all Fighteer, it's already been pointed out that there are several elected Republicans that share my views. Also, yes, the sanctity of human life is a huge issue to me. Just like you, there are things I'm willing to tolerate to see that all human life is protected.
And beyond it's already been shown that some of the things you label as "Democratic" or "liberal" goals can, if you adjust your view of right and left, and liberal and conservative, are actually quote unquote Republican ideals.
But that's not the point. Is it truly that difficult to admit that one need not be "indoctrinated", or "bad at labelling", or "conditioned" to be a Republican with nominally liberal leanings? Is it so hard to admit that they other guy might have legitimate reasons for his beliefs just like you have for yours?
edited 20th Nov '12 4:33:47 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor

@Fighteer: Rove could also be losing his mind at the thought that he lost, which is against the laws of nature because he's the brilliant political strategist who swept Bush into power.