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
Steele
was the former chairman of the RNC. If you watch The Daily Show, he's the one they kept using the puppet for.
Edit: What chance would Steele have? I mean, he couldn't even win a Senate seat.
edited 10th Mar '13 6:39:16 PM by Lascoden
boopThey're also both black Republicans.
Reposting these because they were edited in to a page bottom post:
Wait a second!
Paul didn't actually disagree with Holder's position; he was using the filibuster to raise funds?
...and fuck.
They're employing the "Salvadoran option" in Iraq.
And Allen West is a nutter notable for this stuff:
edited 10th Mar '13 7:09:47 PM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryAnti-Muslim activist Pam Geller turned away from CPAC
Also on the 'snubbed by CPAC' list: Governor Bob McDonnell
edited 10th Mar '13 7:54:21 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016as was said. they'd likely try running a black candidate willing to tell the repoublican base that black people are lazy, in the deranged hope that one black person saying it will convince all the other black people to "mend their ways"
same as how they somehow expect a Cuban like Rubio to get mexican votes.
whjich is kind of like saying "all latinos look alike"
There is, theoretically, a critical point by which the angry white racist voting demographic will have shrunk enough, in comparison to the growing Latino demographic, that the Republican Party can afford to abandon the former to court the latter.
Alternatively, they could just work on those voter suppression measures by pushing harder at the state level. They did win a net increase in governor's seats in the last elections, after all.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The Republican Party has staked their claim on not changing a single part of their core message. It will take multiple decisive election losses for them to figure out that what they are selling isn't being bought anymore.
At that point it's 50/50 as to whether they will try to genuinely change or switch from a political party to a revolutionary force.
edited 11th Mar '13 6:26:49 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Kostya: I think the people who realize the republican party need to change are being drowned out or booted out by the "True believers" who are every bit as fundamnetalist as christians are in the rural midwest.
Which is to say. when given a choice between facts and ideology, they will declare facts lies from the pit of hell and believe their opinions are truth and anyone who disagrees is out to destroy america.
case in point. I had a facebook discussion with a friend of a friend once where we debated morals and what we felt was most important to a functioning society. When I said I prized altruism over my own aggrandizement, he accused me of violently assaulting him and his rights and started quoting ayn rand directly. Because apparently in his world, even thinking altruism should be a basic human thing to do meant I was out to violently jackboot his rights.
edited 11th Mar '13 6:56:43 AM by Midgetsnowman
Wow, I'd just want to punch him. Why would you bother making friends if you had no altruistic intentions? Most people make friends because they want to spend time with someone, not because they want contacts or resources said 'friend' can get them.
And seriously, if the guy was actually a Randian objectivist, he wouldn't have talked like that. He should have mentally filed you under the 'shmuck' folder and waited until he'd be able to get one up on you, because otherwise, he made it significantly harder to do that and fulfill the axioms of Randian Objectivism.
That just means that he's a stupid Randian — one who mouths the precepts without really understanding them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Or a hypocrite only partially aware of his hypocrisy. Five bucks says he's depended on the altruism of others in the past and will do so again in the future.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Fuckin' really? Please tell me you pointed this out to him.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

edited 10th Mar '13 6:07:09 PM by Kostya