CNN poll and one Democratic Consultant: Republicans might win the senate
107 replies, posted
Any time the Republican party starts to gain power I get really, really scared.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46196169]Any time the Republican party starts to gain power I get really, really scared.[/QUOTE]
If they get both legislative and executive they're going to continue to deregulate and dismantle social programs, so it makes sense to worry.
Am I wrong to feel like the right has been gaining control in a lot of countries recently?
Don't be fooled by the name, the Tea Party is not an actual political party but a [I]grassroots organization[/I] that campaigns for ultra-neocons into the Republican Party.
Every party has its own little segments and this is a fast growing one within the GOP. To see it as something separate from the Republican Party is to lessen the image of the GOP threat to government.
Even non-Tea Party elected GOP are more likely to side with Tea Party politicians so it's probably best to assume GOP = Tea Party in most respects.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;46197668]If they get both legislative and executive they're going to continue to deregulate and dismantle social programs, so it makes sense to worry.
Am I wrong to feel like the right has been gaining control in a lot of countries recently?[/QUOTE]
Most of the 'right' parties that have been elected into government around the world are somewhat neoliberal (yes I've noticed to), and that ideology is very advantageous compared to other ideologies with how easily marketable it is. After all (from the perspective of the average joe), who wouldn't want to pay less taxes and who wouldn't want to see them nasty 'dole bludgers' thrown off of welfare?
Parties which actually come up with well-thought policies have to suffer because many people can't understand how the policy works or what it's supposed to achieve, and then you have neoliberal parties who take advantage of that ignorance and say that it's 'wasteful spending' and full of 'red tape'.
I think we as a nation should be really be less extreme and embrace moderation
It's so red vs blue it hurts
I want some goddamn purple
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46198783]I think we as a nation should be really be less extreme and embrace moderation
It's so red vs blue it hurts
I want some goddamn purple[/QUOTE]
That's probably never going to happen. American politics is just getting more and more polarized with each passing year, and every crisis that we're put through just makes it even worse. It's only a matter of time before some new problem comes up and affects us again, maybe economic or maybe military, and we're already well on our way to another military crisis with the ISIS troubles in the Middle East, and just entrenches us deeper.
But polarization is ultimately good. Eventually, things will be forced to a head once enough pressure is applied, and one side will take dominance over the other. For how long is another matter entirely. Or maybe, we'll even see a new third party arise. That's a distinct possibility. One thing's for sure: things cannot go on this way forever. Something will happen, eventually.
This is naturally a terrible year for Democrats. The House is a lost cause due to 2010 gerrymandering and it will be several years before they have a credible chance to get it back. Almost all of the Senate seats up for election this year are either extremely safe Republican seats or tenuously-held Democrat seats in conservative states. Democrats have to spend all their money on defense and have no real chance at taking any Republican seats, while the GOP can spend ALL their money on offense. On top of that, Democratic voters have proven time and again to be extremely shitty at turning out for midterm elections. That's largely why the GOP swept state and House elections in 2010.
Bottom line, NOTHING is going to be done in DC for at least the next two years. On the upside, Democrats will have significantly better opportunities in 2016 to take congressional seats, and Republican support for nationwide elections gets worse every year as demographics shift. If we didn't have winner-take-all state-by-state presidential elections, they would have essentially zero chance.
[editline]10th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46198783]I think we as a nation should be really be less extreme and embrace moderation
It's so red vs blue it hurts
I want some goddamn purple[/QUOTE]
Today's purple is the red of 20 years ago. The GOP has lurched all the way out to the batshit crazy end of the spectrum and dragged the supposed center with them.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46196169]Any time the Republican party starts to gain power I get really, really scared.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=darunner;46202095]Why?[/QUOTE]
Because republicans by in large are in favor of a larger and more authoritarian government, no matter how much they claim to want 'smaller' government. Which is an incredible tenuously defined term that means different things to different people. However the republican base is happy to parrot this mantra without questioning what it actually means. These same people would likely not be for a smaller military budget, less police, and less drug laws.
IF this happens, it will not end well for America.
I'd rather vote for the democratic party or even an independent party than the republicans.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;46202930]Because republicans by in large are in favor of a larger and more authoritarian government, no matter how much they claim to want 'smaller' government. Which is an incredible tenuously defined term that means different things to different people. However the republican base is happy to parrot this mantra without questioning what it actually means. These same people would likely not be for a smaller military budget, less police, and less drug laws.[/QUOTE]
Not true. The republicans generally favor a smaller government, even if only in comparison to the democrats. Sure you have things like military budget but in general they favor looser regulations of general commerce, firearms privileges, social intervention, etc. and if I remember correctly a number of republicans on the east coast were campaigning with less drug restrictions on their agendas (although this was a few years ago and I'm citing memory)
So even if in the big picture republicans support a "big government" by comparison they're still nothing compared to the Democratic Party.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46198783]I think we as a nation should be really be less extreme and embrace moderation
It's so red vs blue it hurts
I want some goddamn purple[/QUOTE]
Why would you want "purple"? Why do you want compromise on a lot of these issues?
You want there to be "compromise" over gay marriage? So instead of marriage there should just be civil unions. That's a better alternative, right? How about compromise over unequal pay for women in the workplace? Instead of going with the side that wants to equalize this, we should "compromise" and maybe just meet the Republicans halfway.
This is a [url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground]classic fallacy[/url] that a ton of people subscribe to for some reason, especially when it comes to Democrat vs. Republican in the US. One of these parties is clearly better than the other. Whether it's gun rights, women's rights, ecological policy, economics, higher taxes on the rich, foreign policy, etc etc the Democrats are far superior. Stop saying "they're both the same oh woe is me nothing can be done" when that's such a bogus and untrue statement.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46203137]The republicans generally favor a smaller government, [B]even if only in comparison to the democrats.[/B][/QUOTE]
They're only better in comparison to Democrats [URL="http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-government-size-as-measured-by-spending-by-president-political-party/"]by a percentage point,[/URL] assuming we include WWII (and they're worse if we don't). If you believe that Congress should be blamed for this meager variance in Federal expenditures, the fact that [URL="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7515h7n6"]Democrats and Republicans converge on spending issues if they gain a majority[/URL] negates that entire concept. Both parties support a large Federal government, they can only be demonstrated to disagree when they're vying for control.
Anyone pretending the GOP supports a small-government is sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring decades of hard statistics.
I am surprisingly alright with this.
Franco would be proud.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46203137]Not true. The republicans generally favor a smaller government, even if only in comparison to the democrats. Sure you have things like military budget but in general they favor looser regulations of general commerce, firearms privileges, [B]social intervention[/B], etc.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. By the way, there's more to government size than square footage.
[QUOTE=darunner;46202095]Why?[/QUOTE]
Aside from how I don't think a lot of what they believe is correct or helps the country at all, and how they're a huge source of the over-presence of American nationalism, there's the whole LGBT deal. I know there are plenty of republicans who aren't homophobic and are pro gay marriage and all that shit, but the fact is that the Republican party [I]is[/I] the biggest obstacle in the way of me marrying my girlfriend, and likely to be an obstacle in me transitioning from being male to female.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46203137]Not true. The republicans generally favor a smaller government, even if only in comparison to the democrats. Sure you have things like military budget but in general they favor looser regulations of general commerce, firearms privileges, social intervention, etc. and if I remember correctly a number of republicans on the east coast were campaigning with less drug restrictions on their agendas (although this was a few years ago and I'm citing memory)
So even if in the big picture republicans support a "big government" by comparison they're still nothing compared to the Democratic Party.[/QUOTE]
Considering the Republican party wants to tell me who I'm allowed to marry, that women aren't allowed to get abortions, and tons of other such shit, I don't think they're small government at all. I feel like the government interferes in my life [I]even more[/I] under them, even if they're fine with me having a gun.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46203137]Not true. The republicans generally favor a smaller government, even if only in comparison to the democrats. Sure you have things like military budget but in general they favor looser regulations of general commerce, firearms privileges, social intervention, etc. and if I remember correctly a number of republicans on the east coast were campaigning with less drug restrictions on their agendas (although this was a few years ago and I'm citing memory)
So even if in the big picture republicans support a "big government" by comparison they're still nothing compared to the Democratic Party.[/QUOTE]
That's what they sell, but it has absolutely zero basis in reality.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46203209]Why would you want "purple"? Why do you want compromise on a lot of these issues?
You want there to be "compromise" over gay marriage? So instead of marriage there should just be civil unions. That's a better alternative, right? How about compromise over unequal pay for women in the workplace? Instead of going with the side that wants to equalize this, we should "compromise" and maybe just meet the Republicans halfway.
This is a [url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground]classic fallacy[/url] that a ton of people subscribe to for some reason, especially when it comes to Democrat vs. Republican in the US. One of these parties is clearly better than the other. Whether it's gun rights, women's rights, ecological policy, economics, higher taxes on the rich, foreign policy, etc etc the Democrats are far superior. Stop saying "they're both the same oh woe is me nothing can be done" when that's such a bogus and untrue statement.[/QUOTE]
Settling for the middle ground and compromising isn't about it being the best option.
It's about finding a position both sides can agree on and work with; where each side is represented and has a say in the solution. It degrades the "us vs. them" mentality.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46205853]Settling for the middle ground and compromising isn't about it being the best option.
It's about finding a position both sides can agree on and work with; where each side is represented and has a say in the solution. It degrades the "us vs. them" mentality.[/QUOTE]
Black people should only have gotten 1/2 the vote.
Women can only get 1/2 abortions.
Gays can only get 1/2 the benefits from marriage.
But don't worry. At least we have the right mentality.
Thinking that a "middle-ground solution" is best is indeed a fallacy, but that is NOT the same as settling for one because a "better" solution might not be feasible.
You can be as "right" and go for the "best" solution as much as you want, but at some point you have to accept that the real world/universe doesn't give a damn about your "morals" or "principles" and your "best" solution may not even be reachable.
If an "ideal", a "good", or even a "decent" solution are not practically attainable, then they shouldn't be considered goals except where where they give a psychological and/or ideological advantage (which admittedly can happen quite often).
Psychological and ideological benefits aside, shooting for goals that cannot be reached is terrible planning when it comes to actually making decisions.
If you are trying to get what you want against significant opposition then you have three options. You can either:
A. Persuade the other side.
B. Compromise with the other side.
C. Neutralize the other side.
Note that "A" and "C" can occur the other way and you can be persuaded or neutralized as well.
Also note that these are VERY broad, as an example "Neutralize" isn't always directly harmful to the other side.
If you are going to argue against the the "Compromise" option then you are going to have to offer a viable "Persuade" or "Neutralize" option. In this case I would assume "Persuade" is out, so most alternatives may fall under "Neutralize".
Unfortunately, many people will instead go with a "keep pushing and hope that I will eventually win because I'm right or my principles are sound" route.
This route usually does not lead to a solution because it assumes that being right gives an advantage and that the world cares about your principles. The former assumption is probably bad because if it was correct we wouldn't be having this discussion and the latter assumption is bad because it's bullshit created by wishful thinking.
America needs a third party, picking between two is a very boring choice.
[QUOTE=Killergam;46207142]America needs a third party, picking between two is a very boring choice.[/QUOTE]
Third parties are on the ballot, along with Independents.
People just hardly ever vote for them because they lack financial backing for marketing and their candidates are typically lackluster. We have factions inside each of the two major parties and candidates prefer to align themselves rather than run as a third party or Independent.
I feel like theirs no hope to be honest.
People in this country are so afraid of doing things different or open to new ideas. Constant compromises aren't that great (ACA for example). If you get someone that's great and and progressive he/she just gets stone walled.
Seriously thinking about getting off this sinking ship one day and using my Dual citizenship to live somewhere else.
im leaving this country hopefully for good so they can elect mickey fuckin mouse for all i care
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;46194729]I seriously fear a Republican government again. If you thought the time during Bush's presidency was bad, you're going to shit yourself when you see what will happen when the Tea Party gets control of the government.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing though.
People have such a sour taste of the current democratic President that the people tend to forget how bad it was with Republicans.
Feel free to refute my point, but people just want a change of pace after what Obama has accomplished.
Can't wait for this country to go backwards in time with policies from the Stone Ages.
Bipartisan system will never work and is detrimental to this country.
[QUOTE=Kagu;46207363]
Feel free to refute my point, but people just want a change of pace after what Obama has accomplished.
[/QUOTE]
Well that's really the best way it can work.
In the long run elections do have a small positive effect because people tend vote out incumbents when they dissatisfied. You more or less hit random until you get someone less bad for an extra term.
(Obama getting a second term seemed more about "anti-Romney votes" than "pro-Obama votes". If a "most generic candidate ever" somehow existed and Obama was running against him/her/it then he wouldn't have gotten another term.)
If the government goes Republican then of course it's going to fuck things up in the short term, but the damage they can do is somewhat limited because it's not like they'll get any more entrenched than the Democrats are now and it's not exactly going to last very long.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46194447]As is my understanding of American Politics, both the parties are so similar that it really doesn't make a difference for normal people whose in office because both the 2 parties are so similar.[/QUOTE]
Dunno 'bout the US but that's spot on for Poland.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;46202930]Because republicans by in large are in favor of a larger and more authoritarian government, no matter how much they claim to want 'smaller' government. Which is an incredible tenuously defined term that means different things to different people. However the republican base is happy to parrot this mantra without questioning what it actually means. These same people would likely not be for a smaller military budget, less police, and less drug laws.[/QUOTE]
Thank God we have the Democrats running the country. The party of individual rights, and respects the people's privacy and doesn't run questionable programs that arm terrorists in other countries so they can profit off of inevitable wars to overthrow them later on.
The party that welcomed Edward Snowden with open arms and called him a hero for bringing to light the illegal practices the government was using on it's own people.
[QUOTE=darunner;46208895]Thank God we have the Democrats running the country. The party of individual rights, and respects the people's privacy and doesn't run questionable programs that arm terrorists in other countries so they can profit off of inevitable wars to overthrow them later on.
The party that welcomed Edward Snowden with open arms and called him a hero for bringing to light the illegal practices the government was using on it's own people.[/QUOTE]
If only we had the Republicans who totally wouldn't have done all of those things along with a lot of bad things that the Democrats wouldn't do
[QUOTE=darunner;46208895]Thank God we have the Democrats running the country. The party of individual rights, and respects the people's privacy and doesn't run questionable programs that arm terrorists in other countries so they can profit off of inevitable wars to overthrow them later on.
The party that welcomed Edward Snowden with open arms and called him a hero for bringing to light the illegal practices the government was using on it's own people.[/QUOTE]
It was under the bush administration that planted the seeds and all this rampant surveillance started, literally both sides are responsible :v:
If you wanna think the republicans are so great you can just look at the hero Ronald Reagan which there entire platform aspires to, maintained communism blacklists which ruined peoples lively hood.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.