The all-inclusive "Republicans hate everything America stands for" thread

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by "Half Assed" Karesh

Are they the best party? No!
Are they a great party? No!
Are they the moral, ethical, economical, or any equivalent of the radical pandering GOP of today? No!

This false dichotomy, the idea that both parties are as bad as each other and thus voting is irrelevant is beneficial only for the GOP. Voter apathy is their fucking bread and butter at this point because they know their ridiculously loyal base won't ever stop turning up to vote.

Uhm... Having only one party in power means you have less of a buffer in dichotomy. Sure, I know that the gerrymandered GOP benefits means we'll have a number of people in as stooges. But there is no way in hell that Democrats or Republicans represent all of the US. The problem is that there are plenty of third parties that would do well in usurping the GOP. I would prefer the Libertarians as the sane Republicans of old or the Justice Party or even the Green Party in primaries around the country. It's not voter apathy, it's the problems of how votes are disproportionate in various states. California has lost 10 electoral votes because of our electoral college while politicians focus on Virginia and Florida who have disproportionate votes.

The fastest, simplest way to turn this country toward liberalism is appealing to the moderate portion of our population while trying to maintain a liberal leaning. Obama was never a liberal, he's a moderate and I think if he dropped the attempts to pander to the GOP every now and then he'd be a damn good president because of that.

He's not a moderate. He's an authoritarian rightist whose views are only slightly more central than Romney. He went into Washington naive and ignorant. He's bought by Goldman Sachs. He's a horrible president that doesn't fight for anything. But the Republicans are 10x worse. That's the only redeeming factor here.

Fuck, in England every single party is a liberal leaning one even though they're all identified with other things. Their parties go Liberal conservative, liberal socialist, and liberal, not because everybody is just that liberal but because the liberals of the past appealed to the moderate majority, and proved that their ideals worked better than the opposition. A conservative ideal can be put into the public mindset for a time, but humanity is always moving forward. We've almost never gone back just for the fuck of it. Imagining going back to segregation, slavery or other things is unthinkable for the majority of the public. But this polarizing, turning everything into far flung ideals for our side versus theirs won't freaking work because most people in the middle don't want that anymore than they want to go backward. It doesn't make them want to vote for either side, it makes them not vote, and when less people vote we get the radical portion of our populace running the show, which, guess what? IS ALL THE GOP RIGHT NOW.

America is progressive on most issues. That means they stand on the left. Democrats stand on the right on most issues from their position of compromise (Patriot Act, DMCA, SOPA where they supported fixing that godawful bill, etc...). If they were trying to get better, we'd need to remove the ones that are proven evil asshole DINOs, namely Ben Nelson (retiring), Rahm Emanuel (Mayor of a city and doing a horrid job), and Charles Schumer (don't get me started on how he sold out).

There are options, but it's time to at the very least put voting options on the table. So much is focused on the GOP that it leaves a very bad system in place that really needs to be changed to allow what I've written about in my other posts.

A little while ago the crazy was far more divided, and thus manageable. But a few decades ago after the Democrats became the party of progress, equality and relatively liberal ideas they all went to the GOP, who they saw as the defenders of their right to be nuts.

I would argue that this is more the result of Citizens United that put the problem on Mach 1 and showed exactly what the last 30 years of economic inequality was building up to.

It's pretty rare, but Perot can be blamed for a lot of the more centrist views of the current democratic party. He's a weird case, though, because he stole 38% of the vote from both republicans and democrats. Clinton ended up winning, but he ended up winning by being democrat-lite, a very moderate and conservative version of the democrat party. He can also be blamed for the McCain/Palin ticket, as McCain was a very centrist republican. G.W. was also billed as being relatively moderate and centrist before being put into office the first time. He ran as a 'compassionate conservative' implying a centrist view.

Not sure if it would work again. The GOP has gotten so polarized that any moderate was run out of the party (like Gary Johnson, who balanced Arizona's budget).

[Steel Shadow]

Originally Posted by Loyal

You're literally advocating doing nothing on the off chance that somehow, somewhen down the line, something (we don't know what) might happen to the system and that something might be beneficial to us.

And that furthermore, this is preferable to trying to get people to do something, because doing so is kind of annoying to the people who want to do nothing.

Ok then, fine. No, I didn't advocate a damn thing. I asked a question. It's genuine curiosity, because I accept other people know more than I do on this stuff.

I also said the whole 'telling people to vote because otherwise THE BAD PEOPLE WIN!' strategy isn't really doing all that great. Voter turnout is getting lower and lower, despite the whole 'You must vote!' thing people've got going on. But no, annoying people. That's definatly working, wont have adverse effects at all. Human nature is really great like that!

What does this even mean? That someone who's consciously made a particular decision is automatically correct? That their choice is unassailable and should never be contested?

It means that being annoying is only so effective in getting people to do things. That's all. I don't know where you're getting the rest of that.

Also, please refrain from going "I know I shouldn't be here with you experienced debaters and such," because it clearly hasn't stopped you since you're posting here anyway. Also because it makes you look lost and helpless and makes us look like mean old bad guys for opposing you.

Fair enough. I apologise for that.

Edit: And now I've had some sleep, I'll apologise for the rest of this crap. I seem to have been rambling like a drunk hobo. Totally blaming my cold. Thanks for the info, Krylo, I'll have to look into that. It sounds pretty interesting.

As for my question of what'd happen if the voter trends continued, I can actually look at the last UK election and answer that, so double what the hell points for me. I don't know what'd happen in the US if that happened, but I don't imagine the end result would be any better.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Uhm... Having only one party in power means you have less of a buffer in dichotomy. Sure, I know that the gerrymandered GOP benefits means we'll have a number of people in as stooges. But there is no way in hell that Democrats or Republicans represent all of the US. The problem is that there are plenty of third parties that would do well in usurping the GOP. I would prefer the Libertarians as the sane Republicans of old or the Justice Party or even the Green Party in primaries around the country. It's not voter apathy, it's the problems of how votes are disproportionate in various states. California has lost 10 electoral votes because of our electoral college while politicians focus on Virginia and Florida who have disproportionate votes.

That's not going to happen anytime soon and we both know it. There's no way the Libertarians, who can't even get Ron Paul come anywhere near winning the primary are going to take over their party anytime soon.
It's pretty obvious that the majority of GOP members consider libertarians to be a joke. If they went off and made their own party or joined a third party they might make the GOP think twice, but they won't because Ron Paul is their best shot and he's completely convinced he has to stay where he is.

He's not a moderate. He's an authoritarian rightist whose views are only slightly more central than Romney. He went into Washington naive and ignorant. He's bought by Goldman Sachs. He's a horrible president that doesn't fight for anything. But the Republicans are 10x worse. That's the only redeeming factor here.

I'm sorry but I don't think the facts seem to support this. Like, at all. Authoritarian? Under the Bush Administration the Executive Branch enjoyed damn near unprecedented unilateral authority. Bills and wars were pushed through solely on his say so. But now we've seen a shift back to congressional power. It's not ideal considering the GOP has used that chance to block every bill they can, but it's certainly not Authoritarian. Do you have a specific example of Authoritarian politics pushed through by Obama himself?
Further, is he naive and ignorant, corrupt, or a do nothing? I don't think it's possible to be all three.

America is progressive on most issues. That means they stand on the left. Democrats stand on the right on most issues from their position of compromise (Patriot Act, DMCA, SOPA where they supported fixing that godawful bill, etc...). If they were trying to get better, we'd need to remove the ones that are proven evil asshole DINOs, namely Ben Nelson (retiring), Rahm Emanuel (Mayor of a city and doing a horrid job), and Charles Schumer (don't get me started on how he sold out).

That's "On the left" by this warped American standard you've got going. But even if that's true, then why do we have a GOP House? Why did the Democrat party lose seats? Is it not because the GOP convinced that liberal majority that they shouldn't vote through negative politics?

There are options, but it's time to at the very least put voting options on the table. So much is focused on the GOP that it leaves a very bad system in place that really needs to be changed to allow what I've written about in my other posts.

These things are going to take time though. I'd prefer a four year cycle of total Democrat control and then vote some third parties up in to stir up change than letting the GOP have the run of the house for what is a very turbulent and critical time in history. We're already poised for shit to explode in our faces and the last damn thing we need is someone like Santorum, Gingrich or Romney throwing their shit in the pile.

I would argue that this is more the result of Citizens United that put the problem on Mach 1 and showed exactly what the last 30 years of economic inequality was building up to.

The economic policies of the GOP are exclusively pro corporate because of Citizens United, but their social policies are pandering to an extremist base because that's who gets out and votes for them.


Not sure if it would work again. The GOP has gotten so polarized that any moderate was run out of the party (like Gary Johnson, who balanced Arizona's budget).[/QUOTE]

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by "Half Assed" Karesh

That's not going to happen anytime soon and we both know it. There's no way the Libertarians, who can't even get Ron Paul come anywhere near winning the primary are going to take over their party anytime soon.
It's pretty obvious that the majority of GOP members consider libertarians to be a joke. If they went off and made their own party or joined a third party they might make the GOP think twice, but they won't because Ron Paul is their best shot and he's completely convinced he has to stay where he is.

That's because the GOP is pandering to special interests. There are a few that I can see that have a good chance of winning nominations in their primary. I can think of Karen Kwiatkowski and Sheriff Mack off the top of my head. For the most part, I may not agree with all of their practices, but they're running on being a much more sane political party than the GOP. The Tea Party has already been usurped so I wouldn't look to them as guidance. Also, R. Paul is buddy-buddy with Mitt Romney so I highly doubt he'll put in the effort to be president anymore. He's just doing the presidential thing so his son Rand can be VP on the ticket.

I'm sorry but I don't think the facts seem to support this. Like, at all. Authoritarian? Under the Bush Administration the Executive Branch enjoyed damn near unprecedented unilateral authority. Bills and wars were pushed through solely on his say so. But now we've seen a shift back to congressional power. It's not ideal considering the GOP has used that chance to block every bill they can, but it's certainly not Authoritarian. Do you have a specific example of Authoritarian politics pushed through by Obama himself?
Further, is he naive and ignorant, corrupt, or a do nothing? I don't think it's possible to be all three.

There's so much it's ridiculous... The signing of the NDAA, the resigning of the Patriot Act, the persecutions of whistleblowers, the attack on civil rights through the signing of the HR 347...

He's naive that he was going to change Washington DC.

He's ignorant of what is actually needed to change Washington DC.

He's corrupt for ignoring how the banks are going to cause another economic calamity and he's protected the very Republicans that criticize him instead of throwing them in jail (think Dick Cheney).

That's "On the left" by this warped American standard you've got going. But even if that's true, then why do we have a GOP House? Why did the Democrat party lose seats? Is it not because the GOP convinced that liberal majority that they shouldn't vote through negative politics?

No, they gerrymander the hell out of districts, force people into lopsided races and have been the party of obstruction since the 70s. Their bad ideas really didn't come to prominence until you saw the Citizens United come in and turn them into the horrid morally bankrupt party you see today.

These things are going to take time though. I'd prefer a four year cycle of total Democrat control and then vote some third parties up in to stir up change than letting the GOP have the run of the house for what is a very turbulent and critical time in history. We're already poised for shit to explode in our faces and the last damn thing we need is someone like Santorum, Gingrich or Romney throwing their shit in the pile.

I think the time for electoral reform is now. There's at least two different options to make votes count. Since the electoral system needs to be abolished, we could use a proportional system or an alternative vote system to vote in a president while we switch to a Mixed member proportional party that is less resistant to the two party system and its problems.

I just wish there was more of a chance for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, or Rocky Anderson to be on the main stage with better ways to have a chance than what we have now.

The economic policies of the GOP are exclusively pro corporate because of Citizens United, but their social policies are pandering to an extremist base because that's who gets out and votes for them.

No, they are hyper partisan because they represent the rich. They have a ton of laws being passed to disenfranchise people who vote Democrat. Their voter ID laws disenfranchise 23 million Americans. It's about time for the Democrats to understand that their base is the one affected by horrid laws proposed by ALEC.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Also, R. Paul is buddy-buddy with Mitt Romney so I highly doubt he'll put in the effort to be president anymore. He's just doing the presidential thing so his son Rand can be VP on the ticket.

That's ridiculous.
Ron Paul has attacked Santorum and Gingrich more but it's far more logical to assume that it's just because he doesn't like them as much as Romney. He has a very good personal relationship with Romney, who has to my knowledge treated him personably and with respect in return. Meanwhile Santorum and Gingrich are outright insulting him.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rand was on the ticket for Romney, but even if he was it wouldn't be evidence of a conspiracy anymore than Hilary getting a position in Obama's cabinet was.

There's so much it's ridiculous... The signing of the NDAA, the resigning of the Patriot Act, the persecutions of whistleblowers, the attack on civil rights through the signing of the HR 347...

I don't actually know about the particulars of the resigning of the patriot act, but I do know that the NDAA passed both the house and the senate with an overwhelming majority. So much that even if he hadn't signed it it would have just come back once they re voted anyway.
Also that the NDAA is our DoD budget, so not signing it when it had passed through the house and the senate with overwhelming majority would have been seen as a massive obstruction of our military. It's disingenuous to blame someone for something they A. Had no real power to stop and B. Couldn't even so much as raise complaint without massive repercussions. Were the circumstances the same for the patriot act?
Does he even have the authority to do anything about the whistle blowers? And wouldn't exerting that authority...wait for it: be an act of Authoritarianism?

He's corrupt for ignoring how the banks are going to cause another economic calamity and he's protected the very Republicans that criticize him instead of throwing them in jail (think Dick Cheney).

How so?
I don't think the President of the United States has the Authority to arrest anybody. Even if he did, how do you think that would go down in the public eye? A president arresting people who disagreed with him
Think about that for a second.

No, they gerrymander the hell out of districts, force people into lopsided races and have been the party of obstruction since the 70s.

Even with gerrymandered districts the fact remains that just barely half of the people in the country voted in 08 and even less voted in 10. If your numbers are right and the majority of people are liberal then a greater voting populace would be more beneficial for the left than the right. The only way for them to keep the voting numbers down is by creating a political climate in which people don't care about politics because they view it all as radically immoral assholes doing bad things rather than one party doing radical immoral things and another party that doesn't have the gumption to stop them.

I think the time for electoral reform is now. There's at least two different options to make votes count. Since the electoral system needs to be abolished, we could use a proportional system or an alternative vote system to vote in a president while we switch to a Mixed member proportional party that is less resistant to the two party system and its problems.

If you want electoral reforms at this stage then you need to be able to win the election first. I do not believe any third party has the influence, money or leadership to win the General Election at this point. Voting for them would send a message, but that message is worthless if the Republicans win this election and then use the authority they gain to Gerrymander the electoral system even further.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by CABAL49

Neither Liz nor Snake nor anyone else here have claimed that Democrats are the best thing ever. In fact I am pretty sure both of them defining the Democrats as terrible is proof of them not putting the Democrats on a pedestal. The Democrats are terrible. But they are better than the Republicans, tea party or these self proclaimed libertarians.

Yeah I'm reasonably certain the guy who typed this rant isn't exactly the guy who's arguing now that Democrats are all warm and sunshine and flowers.
(Oh dammit, I deleted the rant. I wonder why I did.)

Even still, I absolutely hate the whole "Not voting at all is better than voting Democrat let's be all apathetic and just concede the political system sucks" lazy bullshittery. If you vote Green Party or something in response to Democratic bullshittery, then kudos, but if you're like "Fuck this shit, I ain't voting," congratulations, you lazy dipshit, you might as well have voted Republican.

Voting should absolutely be fucking mandatory in this and any other country.

[Loyal]

Because of what happened starting about 6-8 posts down from there. Though I'm still not clear as to why you felt deleting the post was necessary.

I think you should still be able to access the post by clicking on the "Last edited by Solid Snake" bit at the bottom of the post, though the gist of the rant is probably clear by the things said in the rest of the thread.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Still think the Democrats are so grand?

...

You really want that in Congress? One party to rule them all?

Well that was a hilariously overt strawman derail.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Voting should absolutely be fucking mandatory in this and any other country.

Democracy demands an educated and informed electorate to survive. Not just a big one.

I'd kind of rather half the people who DO vote didn't because they got no damn clue what they're doing.

It's just the people who actually have some idea of what's going on and don't that's like, argh.

Edit: But I'm going to make an educated guess that most of the people who don't vote are actually apathetic toward politics in general, and being thus are not at all educated nor informed on the issues of the day.

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by "Half Assed" Karesh

That's ridiculous.
Ron Paul has attacked Santorum and Gingrich more but it's far more logical to assume that it's just because he doesn't like them as much as Romney. He has a very good personal relationship with Romney, who has to my knowledge treated him personably and with respect in return. Meanwhile Santorum and Gingrich are outright insulting him.

He's been pretty weak with attacking Romney. Even the mainstream media is starting to pick up on the chumminess.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rand was on the ticket for Romney, but even if he was it wouldn't be evidence of a conspiracy anymore than Hilary getting a position in Obama's cabinet was.

No, but in these last 4 debates it's rather odd to have R. Paul not attack Romney in a lot of states where both campaign.

I don't actually know about the particulars of the resigning of the patriot act, but I do know that the NDAA passed both the house and the senate with an overwhelming majority. So much that even if he hadn't signed it it would have just come back once they re voted anyway.
Also that the NDAA is our DoD budget, so not signing it when it had passed through the house and the senate with overwhelming majority would have been seen as a massive obstruction of our military. It's disingenuous to blame someone for something they A. Had no real power to stop and B. Couldn't even so much as raise complaint without massive repercussions. Were the circumstances the same for the patriot act?
Does he even have the authority to do anything about the whistle blowers? And wouldn't exerting that authority...wait for it: be an act of Authoritarianism?

He had a signing statement that shows how Americans can be brought under terrorist investigation. This changes the fundamental rule of law into that of the rule of man. He could have vetoed and he only threatened to veto the NDAA because of two specific articles.

A veto sends a strong message and I'm sure a lot of people would have rallied support if he gave a damn about Constitutional law. It's even more damaging since he taught Constitutional law for 10 years.

The Patriot Act was snuck into a bill by Harry Reid, but Obama still signed it and pushed majorly for retroactive immunity for the phone companies.

Given that the UN has condemned the US for the treatment of Bradley Manning, how Manning's trial is taking place 19 months after he was tortured and seeing as how there is a secret indictment against Assange, yes, I think Obama can do something but won't.

How so?
I don't think the President of the United States has the Authority to arrest anybody. Even if he did, how do you think that would go down in the public eye? A president arresting people who disagreed with him
Think about that for a second.

Have any bankers been arrested for the derivatives market? No, they've gone on to work for the US Treasury.

Have any war criminals been prosecuted for their actions? No, they're hiding out in the US.

Has Obama really done anything to fix the mess that's come up instead of protecting the Bush decisions? Tax cuts? Civil rights? His one redeeming factor has been women's rights and that came by sheer accident.

Even with gerrymandered districts the fact remains that just barely half of the people in the country voted in 08 and even less voted in 10. If your numbers are right and the majority of people are liberal then a greater voting populace would be more beneficial for the left than the right. The only way for them to keep the voting numbers down is by creating a political climate in which people don't care about politics because they view it all as radically immoral assholes doing bad things rather than one party doing radical immoral things and another party that doesn't have the gumption to stop them.

Or disenfranchise the Democratic vote through Voter ID laws, prison sentences for minorities, and rig the electoral college

Well that was a hilariously overt strawman derail.

No, you can say that Republicans are hideous, but having just one party in power is going to be a horrendous idea. There's a good 1% of Republicans that would do well in power. I would just hope that having an all Democrat (or an all Republican) Congress isn't going to destroy certain freedoms.