Politics

Tengu trying to put me on trial for my earlier shithead remarks is also pretty low. At least I can admit I'm wrong and pretty much told the people involved the same? I don't know what on earth this is all about but a few temp bans later tengu has kept on spewing odious racist pseudoscience and conspiracy youtube videos.

 

Technically it may be right that limiting campaign spending is unconstitutional. Doing so does seem to be at odds with the principle of free speech. Then again, so are libel laws, and yet I don't see anyone picketing congress to abolish those. We have decided on some occasions that free speech should be limited. Limiting campaign spending, incidentally, does not prevent candidates from saying whatever they choose. It just prevents them from flooding the airwaves with their message to the point that the candidates they are running against can't get their message though. In a way, limiting campaign spending actually promotes free speech, because it ensure all candidates have a chance to be heard. Or do you think that money should be the only qualification to run for a political office?

Not everyone is capable of being self reliant. Those are the people we should really be concerned about. Besides, relying on government to solve problems doesn't mean we aren't being self reliant too. It just means that we are working together as a country to solve a particular problem. If no one involved in doing the actual work of implementing the solution was capable of self-reliance, we wouldn't be able to approach problems that way to begin with.

The power of the national government puts it in a better position to deal with a lot of issues than local governments are. And though it may be right that local governments are capable of doing more, there are things local government has no business deciding. For example, I don't think basic human rights issues should be left up to local governments. Otherwise we might have states in this country that still practiced slavery.

It's difficult to approach those kind of issues as a local government though. The more local you get, the more you have to deal with the issue that the money you'd need to implement safety nets isn't in your taxable jurisdiction. This would lead to very inconsistent levels of protection across the country. When you're talking about something that could be a life and death issue for some people, that's not a fair or reasonable approach. We need our social safety nets to be implemented on the national level. So what if the constitution doesn't agree? It's never wrong to help people in need, regardless of what the constitution says.

The federal government's role is whatever we want it to be. We are the people, and this is a democratic system. No existing precedent for the way government operates should get in the way of making a change, if it's what the people want.

Wait... what? Didn't a lack of regulation lead to improperly rated mortgage backed securities, which lead to banks running out of money when shit hit the fan? The problem was, that the banks were the ones paying the ratings institutions, and so they could persuade them to rate a security however they wanted. Just a little regulation to deal with an obvious conflict of interest could have solved the mortgage crisis before it even started. And you're saying the free market wasn't the problem?

Bailing banks out may have been the wrong thing to do. Who knows, maybe the resulting financial chaos of letting them fail would have been good for the economy in the long run. I'm not saying that I'm sure you're right on this one, since there's no way to wind back the clock and try it, but I've said for a long time that it's going to take a very serious shakeup to bring about any real change in this country. Despite the short term damage it may have caused, letting banks fail certainly would have gotten things moving.

That's a misconception. In a free market economy, whoever owns the means of production has the most power, since they can set prices. Really, that is true in any economic system. It doesn't matter how much money you have if the people who own the means of production won't sell to you. The theoretical diversity of ownership for the means of production in a capitalistic society is what's supposed to prevent this from being a problem. But now that we have ownership so thoroughly consolidated in most industries, the consumer has very little power or choice. Why do you think no one cares about providing customer service anymore?

No, it's easier to corrupt local government. That's because local government has much less visibility. It does tend to go by region as to which local governments are the most corrupt, but in some areas it's really, really bad. National politicians may be getting spoon fed campaign funds by lobbyists, but at the end of the day any legislation they pass is going to be subjected to a great deal of public scrutiny. They can't afford to openly screw too many people over.

But I will concede that bad government does hurt the most when it's big. Right now we have Obama trying to pass expensive legislation that won't accomplish anything except increasing our debt, and we have republicans who will attempt to sabotage any legislation that does anything, regardless of if it might actually work as intended. This dysfunctional national government is the direct result of the way we run politics on corporate money, and that has to stop. Otherwise you will never have a national government that serves the interest of the people. By the way, curbing campaign spending would have been a great step on the road to accomplishing this. If you don't like big government, surely you're not a fan of the ludicrous spending in election campaigns either? After all, people who love to spend money on big elections are going to love to spend money in office too.

So what if money is limited? Take it away from the rich and give it to the poor/middle class. You still have the same amount of money in circulation, right? What's the problem?

If they are job creators, why the hell aren't they creating jobs? What creates jobs is people who spend money. Rich people like to save, middle class/poor people like to spend. When the majority of money is locked up by those who like to save it, there's less money to spend for everyone else, and the economy functions less and less efficiently.

Does it look like I care if rich people jump ship? Let them. They are contributing nothing. The people who contribute the most in terms of actual economic value are the scientists and researchers. They are the ones delivering innovative new solutions to problems and creating new sources of economic activity. And they aren't going anywhere. Not unless we continue to marginalize education in this country at least.

What are the people with money actually contributing? The only reason anyone needs them to begin with is to get access to the resources necessary to get their work done. They are gatekeepers and nothing more. Don't even get me started on the people working in the investment sector (investment banking should probably be outlawed). If they try to take their money and run, that would actually be a great outcome. They get out, we tax anything they try to export to America, they are screwed. I don't think it would actually come to that though, because they are smart enough to know they'd be fighting a losing battle. It's still worth more to them to stay in the US economy and play by the rules than it would be to move out of the country completely. Anyway, nothing has stopped them so far from expanding into foreign countries to the greatest extent of their abilities, and taking jobs and money out of the US economy while they're at it. In fact they've already taken so much out of the US economy, I doubt they could take more if they tried.

In this case it really wouldn't though. The government already has the power to tax, all we'd be doing is changing the rates. That's not a new power, it's utilizing a power the government already had.

 

Re: Politics

I agree with you - it's what's been implemented in the UK election campaigns, and has worked wonderfully for the most part. And I'm saying the US supreme court's ruling was what they thought was constitutional.

So it's either down to how the constitution's interpreted, or the constitution itself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Not everyone is capable of being self reliant. Those are the people we should really be concerned about. Besides, relying on government to solve problems doesn't mean we aren't being self reliant too. It just means that we are working together as a country to solve a particular problem. If no one involved in doing the actual work of implementing the solution was capable of self-reliance, we wouldn't be able to approach problems that way to begin with.</div></div>And while that's true, that doesn't change the fact that there isn't much money left, if any. And just because there are people who aren't capable of being self-reliant, doesn't mean people shouldn't look at more efficient ways of providing for them while saving money at the same time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The power of the national government puts it in a better position to deal with a lot of issues than local governments are. And though it may be right that local governments are capable of doing more, there are things local government has no business deciding. For example, I don't think basic human rights issues should be left up to local governments. Otherwise we might have states in this country that still practiced slavery.</div></div>Wrong.

Because it's already in the constitution. Which means the federal govt takes care of human rights, not the states.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It's difficult to approach those kind of issues as a local government though. The more local you get, the more you have to deal with the issue that the money you'd need to implement safety nets isn't in your taxable jurisdiction. This would lead to very inconsistent levels of protection across the country. When you're talking about something that could be a life and death issue for some people, that's not a fair or reasonable approach. We need our social safety nets to be implemented on the national level. So what if the constitution doesn't agree? It's never wrong to help people in need, regardless of what the constitution says.</div></div>You underestimate not only how much power state govts have, but also how much they look to other states for guidance.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The federal government's role is whatever we want it to be. We are the people, and this is a democratic system. No existing precedent for the way government operates should get in the way of making a change, if it's what the people want.</div></div>Isn't it more important for the people to demand the constitution be amended to suit them rather than making laws and programs that are unconstitutional?

The constitution isn't perfect, after all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Wait... what? Didn't a lack of regulation lead to improperly rated mortgage backed securities, which lead to banks running out of money when shit hit the fan? The problem was, that the banks were the ones paying the ratings institutions, and so they could persuade them to rate a security however they wanted. Just a little regulation to deal with an obvious conflict of interest could have solved the mortgage crisis before it even started. And you're saying the free market wasn't the problem?</div></div>Regulation was bloated and under-purposeful(?). Which the banks took advantage of.

IMO, regulatory laws should only be allowed if they protect the consumer in some way or form. That wasn't exactly a well done thing in the SEC, so the banks managed to convince them to take away a couple of laws vital to consumer protection because there were so many that were thought were, but ended up not (if that makes sense).

Basically, the regulatory system spread itself too wide, too thin. And the results blew up in our faces.

That doesn't mean that there should be NO regulation. Free market =/= no regulation. The only regulation that should be allowed are those that protect the consumer.

ATM however, most of the Republicans are calling for NO regulation, and the Democrats are calling for MORE regulation, when the solution to the regulation problem is to STREAMLINE it instead to suit the consumer.

The free market streamlines govt regulation, it doesn't take it away.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Bailing banks out may have been the wrong thing to do. Who knows, maybe the resulting financial chaos of letting them fail would have been good for the economy in the long run. I'm not saying that I'm sure you're right on this one, since there's no way to wind back the clock and try it, but I've said for a long time that it's going to take a very serious shakeup to bring about any real change in this country. Despite the short term damage it may have caused, letting banks fail certainly would have gotten things moving.</div></div>I agree here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

That's a misconception. In a free market economy, whoever owns the means of production has the most power, since they can set prices. Really, that is true in any economic system. It doesn't matter how much money you have if the people who own the means of production won't sell to you. The theoretical diversity of ownership for the means of production in a capitalistic society is what's supposed to prevent this from being a problem. But now that we have ownership so thoroughly consolidated in most industries, the consumer has very little power or choice. Why do you think no one cares about providing customer service anymore?</div></div>Supply and demand. It pretty much dictates everything in the market. You can only control a market if you have a monopoly.

And the consumer has the monopoly. Because they are the lowest common denominator.

In a truly free-market economy, govt doesn't provide regulation apart from preventing collusion or fraud, in particular between the buyers and sellers.

That means that AT WORSE, the consumer is protected.

The common misconception is that no one is protected under a free market system, that anything goes. That's simply not true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

No, it's easier to corrupt local government. That's because local government has much less visibility. It does tend to go by region as to which local governments are the most corrupt, but in some areas it's really, really bad. National politicians may be getting spoon fed campaign funds by lobbyists, but at the end of the day any legislation they pass is going to be subjected to a great deal of public scrutiny. They can't afford to openly screw too many people over.</div></div>Public scrutiny on a national level would work if it wasn't already assumed that politicians are inherently self-interested.

And lobbyists don't have much to lose, either - they're inherently hated by the public, and they don't give a fuck.

Which brings us down to the lowest common denominator here - money.

It'll cost lobbyists a lot more money and decrease the odds of desired results because they'd have to pay state politicians across up to 50 states rather than pay politicians that affect the entire country, which is actually cheaper. And since the state is affected, public scrutiny is better concentrated.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But I will concede that bad government does hurt the most when it's big. Right now we have Obama trying to pass expensive legislation that won't accomplish anything except increasing our debt, and we have republicans who will attempt to sabotage any legislation that does anything, regardless of if it might actually work as intended. This dysfunctional national government is the direct result of the way we run politics on corporate money, and that has to stop. Otherwise you will never have a national government that serves the interest of the people.</div></div>It's not corporate money - it's the two party system, which is optimum for corporate influence. A three-or-more-party system would make corporate influence a lot more difficult.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So what if money is limited? Take it away from the rich and give it to the poor/middle class. You still have the same amount of money in circulation, right? What's the problem?</div></div>The problem is that economies cannot thrive without rich people. Uncomfortable truth, I know. Tax cuts for the rich won't work for the trickle down effect (so taxing the top 2% will help, therefore), but neither will them moving to other countries. Hell, China's had to give up Communist ideologies and turn into a One-Party State with a statist free market in order to overtake Japan as the world's no. 2 economy AND have no debt at the same time. And that means having some rich people in.

America's learning the hard way that the world is gradually weaning itself from revolving around it. And if it wants to stay as the world's no. 1 economy, that may mean taking on some pretty unfair laws.

And it's not like the people aren't at fault, either. The no. 1 concern for the public is job creation, not consumer protection.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If they are job creators, why the hell aren't they creating jobs? What creates jobs is people who spend money. Rich people like to save, middle class/poor people like to spend. When the majority of money is locked up by those who like to save it, there's less money to spend for everyone else, and the economy functions less and less efficiently.</div></div>By that logic, the consumer controls the economy.

And... it does.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it look like I care if rich people jump ship? Let them. They are contributing nothing. The people who contribute the most in terms of actual economic value are the scientists and researchers. They are the ones delivering innovative new solutions to problems and creating new sources of economic activity. And they aren't going anywhere. Not unless we continue to marginalize education in this country at least.</div></div> Supply and demand answers that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are the people with money actually contributing? The only reason anyone needs them to begin with is to get access to the resources necessary to get their work done. They are gatekeepers and nothing more. Don't even get me started on the people working in the investment sector (investment banking should probably be outlawed). If they try to take their money and run, that would actually be a great outcome. They get out, we tax anything they try to export to America, they are screwed. I don't think it would actually come to that though, because they are smart enough to know they'd be fighting a losing battle. It's still worth more to them to stay in the US economy and play by the rules than it would be to move out of the country completely. Anyway, nothing has stopped them so far from expanding into foreign countries to the greatest extent of their abilities, and taking jobs and money out of the US economy while they're at it. In fact they've already taken so much out of the US economy, I doubt they could take more if they tried.</div></div>Supply and demand answers that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

In this case it really wouldn't though. The government already has the power to tax, all we'd be doing is changing the rates. That's not a new power, it's utilizing a power the government already had. </div></div>Good point.

 

http://www.theonion.com/video/landmark-civil-rights-act-made-racism-slightly-les,21352/

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-se...interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-se...interview-pt--2

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-se...interview-pt--3


Ron Paul doesn't always hold up during interviews... Not the best at delivering his message, which hurts him. It leaves room for people to get the wrong idea.

 

Anyone else in America fed up with money in politics? Let's do something about it.

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Edit: If you can't connect, try again later. The server is being swamped right now.

 

Dylan means well, but it's right place, wrong time.

The public can't do shit to the act of buying out politicians unless a 3rd political party in the US becomes mainstream.

Once that happens, getting money outta politics will mostly be a piece of cake.

 

haha. no. no it won't.

 

I don't think so, I think it's the other way around. There is no chance of a 3rd party gaining momentum until we get money out of politics in the first place. Even if a few candidates did get through, they couldn't force a bill to get money out of politics though by themselves. They would need broad bipartisan support. In order for this to actually happen, the people have to demand it with a strong and unrelenting voice. And they need to be willing to create a shitstorm if politicians don't listen. I will support anyone who is willing to act as a leader to advance this cause, and you should too.

 

I see the Republicans as being cruel and heartless. They're so recalcitrant in doing whatever hurts the middle-class and labor. They'll attack post office to weaken it in the hopes that a private company will fill the void, charge more for the same service and most certainly pay their workers less -- obviously they'll channel the difference straight into the pockets of the CEO and top executives.

They ran on "jobs, jobs, jobs" and proceeded to absolutely NOTHING about jobs, not even one measly bill. Apparently Shari'a law and suppressing voter turnout are more important. The Republican Party is truly shameless and wraps themselves in the flag while doing everything they can to hurt this country and 98% of its people.

 

Except two-party politics discourages/punishes bipartisanship.

All you have a is one party in power and one party not in power. In order to not look like pussies to their supporters in particular, the opposing party will have to disagree with ANYTHING and party in power does, even if what is being done makes 100% sense.

The opposing party has a lot more to lose WORKING with the party in power than opposing them. So common ground is few, far between, and even then, there are attempts to find differences in philosophies IN common ground.

Therefore to keep each other's identities intact, they HAVE to be and stay divided. This isn't so obvious unless there's a strong sense of urgency in the people. Only then do they see how fucked up two-party politics are.

Which bring me to this:

The Republicans aren't being bitches because they want the country to burn. They're being bitches because in this system, that's the only way to show STRENGTH while in opposition. If they end up co-operating with the Democrats on legislation with few to no compromises on their ends, they look WEAK in the eyes of the people, let alone their supporters. And this in turn decreases chances of winning elections in future.

And this is something corporations find optimum in influencing politics to their wants. To them, it's just business. Keep them divided, and they become nothing more than puppets because there is no other safety net for them.

A three-party system however seeks common ground rather than differences, usually via common sense policies. Neither the party in power nor especially the main party in opposition can be bitches without risking the voters increasing the seats of the 3rd party in protest and/or support. This punishes the black-and-white goals two-party politics encourages, and encourages open-mindedness in politics.

It's also a nightmare for corporations because of this. It's very difficult to influence politicians without common ground and sense pushing them out of it.

It was why I was hoping the Tea Party movement become a political party - yes, they became batshit crazy after Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin became their spokespeople, but they had enough support to get a few seats in Congress (judging by the mid-term elections). Them becoming the 3rd party would've forced ALL parties to see what similar opinions they have, in turn turning the Tea Party into a more mature party with realistic policies.

Instead, they became a fringe sector of the GOP.

I very much doubt Dylan's campaign with have much impact on politics ATM even with major support from the people, because that's not gonna be the top issue. The top issue right now is how to get the economy running again. And with the Citizen's United ruling, it's gonna take a long time before corporations are banned from donating. If the campaign needs power ASAP, it also needs a mainstream 3rd party.

ANY mainstream 3rd party.

So like I said - right place, wrong time.

 

While what you say about power may be true, you're pointing out the same thing about the Republicans that I'm getting at -- they govern in bad faith.

That's un-American and essentially traitorous. How dare they wrap themselves in the flag as they cut this country off at the knees? It's infuriating. If you're going to wrap yourself in the flag, at least do it in good faith. Instead, they ONLY do it to obscure the fact that they are truly as un-American as it gets; they're truly sick people. They care more about funneling a few more billion to the Koch brothers than they do about helping people who actually NEED it. It makes me sick.

Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. They would never dare rebuke him, despite the fact that he's probably one of the most despicable people in the whole US.

 

How are they sick people when they know that their job AS OPPOSITION IN A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM is to make the president's job as difficult as possible, even if they do agree with some of his policies?

I'm saying that since politics is about image above all else, it's not their fault. I may disagree with what they're doing to keep Obama as weak as possible, but I can't blame them for doing so.

In a two-party system, if you agree with the other party, you are a PUSSY, and therefore not fit to lead the country.

Rush Limbaugh can say what he wants and shit, but he's got nothing on the GOP. They are just on the same boat because the GOP HAS to do that in order to look good.

 

You think the governments of the world coming together have the power to stop the global economy from sinking deeper into the hole it's dug?

Think again, according to this trader.

*Insert 2012 doomsday messages*

 

I'm sorry man, you do not understand American politics whatsoever. Being a two-party system was not impetus to govern in total bad faith prior to 2008. We've NEVER seen anything like the suicidal damage that the GOP did to this country over the debt ceiling. The Republicans wouldn't have dared to pull something like that 10 years ago, not even during Newt's time as Speaker.

I see now that you're opinions aren't based on knowledge regarding American politics, but based your ethnocentric view of a two-party system as you come from a country with a Parliamentary system. Saying it's "not their fault" that they are purposely doing severe damage to the people of this country, just because we have a two-party system, PROVES to me that you truly have no understanding of American politics nor how American politics have worked throughout history.

If you can't hold someone accountable because you think it's their job to hurt the country any time they're not in power, I see now that your views are based much more on an ethnocentrist view of our system of government which is likely what you were taught in school growing up, or that that has to be the pervading view of American politics in the UK. Honestly, you DO NOT know what you're talking about. You do not know what it means to be an American and the pride that we, and our politicians, take in that. Hurting the American people on purpose is an absolute cardinal sin. The fact that you cannot grasp that means your opinions are essentially baseless.

Like I said, you nor Tengu understand American culture or how that culture relates to politics and our social structure. You are so far beyond dead wrong by saying that being the opposition party in this country is an excuse to do harm to its people -- that's just utterly incorrect. They might get away with it because they've brainwashed a group of EXTREMELY weak-minded people through propaganda outlets like FOX, but that's political framing by the right-wing.

Beyond that, I don't know what else to say other than it's painfully obvious to me now you have no understanding of American culture or our politics. Agreeing with the other party was never as frowned upon by the Right than it is now. I think you just can't see what's changed and how drastically it's changed because you don't have a solid reference point from which to compare.

PS - Rush Limbaugh is an extremely powerful force in the GOP. They would never dare cross him because he's a propagandist who lies to support them. The Right has become increasingly fascist over the last 2 years. It's downright scary, wrong and sinister. It's all done to funnel the middle-class' wealth to the extremely rich while driving a wedge between the working-class and the one entity who can protect them from wealthy class warriors and corporate predators. Also, they seek to erode all safety nets to make those who are not wealthy more desperate and force them to increasingly rely on rich, private, for-profit entities. The more workers they can slash from government payrolls, the more workers are available to private business which will eventually push wages down, make the CEOs richer and help install the plutocracy the GOP seeks.

 

*clap clap clap* Gern, your post almost brought a tear to my eye. You have put into words what I've been thinking and half assly saying on this thread about the EU self proclaimed US politics experts since they started spewing nonsense. It's so very clear that they do not understand US politics and that's honestly just fine. The problem is that they think they understand the system over here when they really don't.

I hope for you guys sake you don't talk to abroad US citizens about your view on our politics over here because you'd sound foolish.

Again, bravo Gernburgs, very well said.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcMeSLBPpZA

 

You haven't seen it previously because there was no perceived reason by the American people to see it. Not unless it affects them BIG TIME.

Notice how very few people gave a FUCK about the US debt ceiling until the current recession hit. And now everyone's looking at Congress getting pissed off at a trait that has always been there.

So of course you'd think Congress has never been divided until now. You didn't care until it affected you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see now that you're opinions aren't based on knowledge regarding American politics, but based your ethnocentric view of a two-party system as you come from a country with a Parliamentary system. Saying it's "not their fault" that they are purposely doing severe damage to the people of this country, just because we have a two-party system PROVES to me that you truly have no understanding of American politics nor how American politics have worked throughout history.</div></div>It's the other way round. YOU'VE lost understanding of American politics because despite been engrossed in it your entire life, you're not seeing this from God view.

I'm not questioning whether the GOP's tactics are right or wrong. That's not important, AFAIC. What's important is WHY. It's incredibly easy to accuse them to intentionally trying to bring the US down, but that's nothing more than emotional talk rather than rational, especially when you're not looking at the big picture.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can't hold someone accountable because you think it's their job to hurt the country any time they're not in power, I see now that your views are based much more on an ethnocentrist view of our system of government which is likely what you were taught in school growing up, or that that has to be the pervading view of American politics in the USA. Honestly, you DO NOT know what you're talking about. You do not know what it means to be an American and the pride that we, and our politicians, take in that. Hurting the American people on purpose is an absolute cardinal sin. The fact that you cannot grasp that means your opinions are essentially baseless.</div></div>Look man, FUCK patriotism. Of any kind. I'm talking practicality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like I said, you nor Tengu understand American culture or how that culture relates to politics and our social structure. You are so far beyond dead wrong by saying that being the opposition party in this country is an excuse to do harm to its people -- that's just utterly incorrect.</div></div>Not to say that they're right on trying to "do harm to its people", but do you have any idea on how the GOP can differentiate themselves in almost every way from the Democrats without looking like pussies in the eyes of the people in the process?

I mean, they can't do policies to appeal to people like you - there's the Democrats for that.

They can't exactly turn away from their supporters, considering their supporters feel like they have to go to extremes to get things done (extreme views only come to be when it's perceived that moderate views don't work).

So you got any better ideas?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They might get away with it because they've brainwashed a group of EXTREMELY weak-minded people through propaganda outlets like FOX, but that's political framing by the right-wing.</div></div>Oh boy.

Fox came to be to fill the void of the conservative voter - the conservative voter in the US feels persecuted because in their eyes, the rest of the media world is liberal and shuts down any conservative talk. This may not be true (I don't believe that objectivity can exist in today TV media without alienating their audience, as in the midst of social media people want media companies to take a stand in something), but that is their perception.

Fox News took advantage of that void. And just in case you're wandering, they're the most popular news network on cable because they're the only conservative TV network on cable, AFAIA.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beyond that, I don't know what else to say other than it's painfully obvious to me now you have no understanding of American culture or our politics. Agreeing with the other party was never as frowned upon by the Right than it is now. I think you just can't see what's changed and how drastically it's changed because you don't have a solid reference point from which to compare.</div></div>Again, it wasn't frowned upon previously because the effect on the people was minimal at best, so no one took notice. It's when the effect on the people is huge that the scrutiny is more intense, and the pattern is seen.

 

Political and or random links thread. Dood supplied nothing in the way of evidence, I could have waltzed on there and said as much as he did haha.

Then as erdraug's vid points out, dood's a chump.