Is it just me or is the Republican Party in America getting more... nutty?

[monovillage]

Evidently not.

From the evidence in this thread, then yes, it is just you.

 

[Skitzer]

I'm not throwing rocks I'm asking a question.

No, actually you are trolling you clever little man.

 

[xBiffx]

Or it might have something to do with others posting in the thread and corroborating his observations. Once again, if you don't like this thread nobody is forcing you to read it. There are plenty of others you can troll.

The people posting against his "observation" so far outweigh anyone confirming it. Sorry to burst your bubble. Well done calling me a troll for stating the obvious however.

 

[Kadarin]

It seems to me that the Republicans are in fact getting "nuttier", particularly since the advent of the Tea Party along with the apparent disregard for and disapproval of science in general.

We also get candidates now like Hermain Cain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5xZKszXMQ

 

[Bowfinger]

The people posting against his "observation" so far outweigh anyone confirming it. Sorry to burst your bubble. Well done calling me a troll for stating the obvious however.

Perhaps so, but reality is not determined by popular vote. If the number of liars or deluded fools exceeds the number of honest, grounded people, the majority vote will not match reality. HAL9000 asked a legitimate question, no matter how much your tiny little mind doesn't want to hear it.

 

[xBiffx]

It seems to me that the Republicans are in fact getting "nuttier", particularly since the advent of the Tea Party along with the apparent disregard for and disapproval of science in general.

We also get candidates now like Hermain Cain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5xZKszXMQ

Ok. How is the Tea Party any different to the right than the OWS is to the left except for the frequency of showers? Disapproval of science, you mean like the environ-mentals and their global warming and PETA?

Please try harder when trying to say the right is nuttier and not use examples that can precisely describe the left.

 

[xBiffx]

Perhaps so, but reality is not determined by popular vote. If the number of liars or deluded fools exceeds the number of honest, grounded people, the majority vote will not match reality. HAL9000 asked a legitimate question, no matter how much your tiny little mind doesn't want to hear it.

ROFL. Now if you disagree with someone's opinion they are a liar or deluded. Agree with them and they are honest, grounded people. I have to remember that one. ROFL x 1000

 

[Bowfinger]

ROFL. Now if you disagree with someone's opinion they are a liar or deluded. Agree with them and they are honest, grounded people. I have to remember that one. ROFL x 1000

That's not what I said, of course, but if the shoe fits ... For the record, I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your "reasoning". I'm sure you won't let this fact deter you from spreading lies, however.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Am I srsly to believe that the Republican Party was less socially conservative in the 50's than the last decade? I think that when you're still dealing with people that think interracial marriage should be illegal, gay marriage is pretty far down on the priority list. If anything social conservatism has been less significant than ever, with Ron Paul supporters and whatnot trying to focus on a more libertarian viewpoint.

 

[soundforbjt]

Looks at current repub candidates and could see how OP could arrive at that theory. No, it's just seems that way, they've always been this nutty for the past 60 years.

There's just more access to media and more "news" available.

 

[Craig234]

Hal, there has long been this sort of element in American society. Then again, I just watched a documentary about the 'English Defense League', so England isn't immune.

What's changed is the cultivation of this faction as a political base, and the consolidation of ownership of the media ini the US under a few corporate owners.

We no longer really have an equivalent to 'The Guardian'; not that we ever really did, but there was some more independence sometimes. But our big papers have always been friendly to government requests to not publish information the government didn't want printed. But now the media is more easily used for organizing that faction.

Our 'Guardian' type independent media is a 'niche market' in the US, good but read by few. That's finally improving a bit with the MSNBC and Current TV progressive news shows.

As far as the history - a good example is 'The John Birch Society', such as JFK firing Gen. Walker for indoctrinating American troops with Birch ideology (with Walker then doing things like organizing protests against civil rights, resulting in civil rights workers being killed) - immediiately following the 'McCarthy era' in American politics.

But starting in the 60's, efforts to organize this faction as a political force - one that could be sent communications, with calls for actions and votes, began.

Continuing under Nixon, it helped elect Ronald Reagan and paved the way for its largest implementation, Fox News under the leadership of former Nixon aide Roger Ailes.

Now, there's a large scale media operation feeding this faction and organizing them.

There's a good book - if dry - on the history of all this 'radical right organizing', titled 'The Republican Noise Machine' by David Brock. Amazon's boom description:

In The Republican Noise Machine, David Brock skillfully documents perhaps the most important but least understood political development of the last thirty years: how the Republican Right has won political power and hijacked public discourse in the United States.

Brock, a former right-wing insider and the author of the New York Times bestseller Blinded by the Right, uses his keen understanding of the strategies, tactics, financing, and personalities of the American right wing to demonstrate how the once-fringe phenomenon of right-wing media has all but subsumed the regular media conversation, shaped the national consciousness, and turned American politics sharply to the right.

Brock documents how in the last several decades the GOP built a powerful media machine--newspapers and magazines, think tanks, talk radio networks, op-ed columnists, the FOX News Channel, Christian Right broadcasting, book publishers, and high-traffic internet sites--to sell conservatism to the public and discredit its opponents. This unabashedly biased multibillion-dollar communications empire disregards journalistic ethics and universal standards of fairness and accuracy, manufacturing "news" that is often bought and paid for by a tight network of corporate-backed foundations and old family fortunes. By dissecting the appeal, techniques, and reach of the booming right-wing media market, Brock demonstrates that it is largely based on bigotry, ignorance, and emotional manipulation closely tied to America’s longstanding cultural divisions and the buying power of anti-intellectual traditionalists.

From the disputed 2000 presidential election to the war with Iraq to the political battles of 2004, Brock's penetrating analysis of right-wing media theories and methodology reveals that the Republican Right views the media as an extension of a broader struggle for political power. By tracing the political impact of right-wing media, Brock shows how disproportionate conservative influence in the media is integrally linked to the Republican Right’s current domination of all three branches of government, to the propping up of the Bush administration, and to the inability of Democrats to voice their opposition to this political sea change or to compete on an even playing field.

As only an ex-conservative intimately familiar with the imperatives of the American right wing could, David Brock suggests ways in which concerned Americans can begin to redress the conservative ascendancy and cut through the propagandistic fog. Writing with verve and deep insight, he reaches far beyond typical bromides about media bias to produce an invaluable account of the rise of right-wing media and its political consequences. Promising to be the political book of the year, The Republican Noise Machine will transform the raging yet heretofore unsatisfying debate over the politics of the media for years to come.

 

[Bowfinger]

Am I srsly to believe that the Republican Party was less socially conservative in the 50's than the last decade? I think that when you're still dealing with people that think interracial marriage should be illegal, gay marriage is pretty far down on the priority list. If anything social conservatism has been less significant than ever, with Ron Paul supporters and whatnot trying to focus on a more libertarian viewpoint.

I agree the GOP was even more socially conservative in the past. So was America as a whole. What I see has changed, however, is the greatly increasing influence of evangelical religions. You see that in the blatant pandering you see from many candidates, as well as more practical issues like the tendency to reject science in favor of faith. I also see the modern GOP has largely abandoned its traditional fiscal conservatism, adopting the same reckless spending habits they attack the left for.

 

[lopri]

These days being called a "moderate" seems to be a no-no among Republicans who are looking to run for elections. That says quite a lot. I thought "moderate" was usually understood as a compliment/plus for a candidate for both parties.

 

[dmcowen674]

Is it just me or is the Republican Party in America getting more... nutty?

As a non-american I don't really see whats going on over there much in politics but these last couple of years I've really seen a lot of random youtube videos with these religious anti gay nuts and similar craziness coming from the Republican Party in America, normally they aren't even on my radar but recently I've noticed this crap all over the place?

Is it just me? Is it a change in America in general or is it just the Republicans? If so what made it happen?

Thanks for noticing as an outsider.

History books as well as Internet archives especially from on here will show how whacked the Republican America haters are.

Basically they value money above life and country and it's clear for all to see as you do.

 

[irishScott]

It's the Tea Party. They're mostly full of retards and are in the last throws of the political temper tantrum that started their little movement.

 

[sandorski]

Not just you++

 

[soundforbjt]

It's the Tea Party. They're mostly full of retards and are in the last throws of the political temper tantrum that started their little movement.

You bring up a good point, the TP has had no voice at all in this election so far. Are they soon to be forgotten?

How could they honestly get behind Willard?

 

[irishScott]

You bring up a good point, the TP has had no voice at all in this election so far. Are they soon to be forgotten?

How could they honestly get behind Willard?

The Tea Party never had any real staying power IMO. It was fonded as an opposition movement to Obama and spread based on the message that Obama was making things worse, especially after the whole healthcare fiasco. Given that Obama has largely either done things right or dodged most serious issues since then, and things have gotten marginally better overall, they've had little real fuel to run on. They just kept up the usual rhetoric of Obama destroying America based petty little things no one but them really cares about and eventually people got tired of hearing the broken record.

They'll probably have another spurt of political relevence in the upcoming election, but as it is the Tea Party is based on anger. If they have nothing legitimate to rage against, their numbers will shrink into obscurity. OWS is basically the liberal equivalent without the political organization.

 

[Aikouka]

I think it's pretty stereotypical at this point to believe the Republican party consists of the devoted religious and/or wealthy of America. So, all you really see are the Republican candidates pandering to their base. Then you've got shows on stations like Fox News that make a big deal out of how religious some politician is based on how often he uses the word "God".

It's a bit of lunacy, but people lap it up.

 

[cybrsage]

Is it just me? Is it a change in America in general or is it just the Republicans? If so what made it happen?

It's you...and it is primary time.

To win the primary, you must be an extremist. To win the general, you must be a centrist.

 

[kage69]

I hate to say it HAL, but it's not just you.


Those looking to defend the Republicans are trying to frame the GOPs current pathetic standing as a result of standard election year shens, hoping that you share their inability to recall recent history.

I think the GOP's behavior towards Obama the last 3+ years validates your question nicely, but I don't expect that will change the dismissals and flames you are getting for asking. Do not think too little of them, it's been a rough couple years for Banana Republicans and 2012 ain't looking so hot either. Prime time for nutbags.

 

[Steeplerot]

Its not just you, I am younger then some here I got into politics in the 80s and the republican party has gone full tilt batshit, reagan was just senile, these folks are plain nuts. (and dragging the dems down with them)

 

[First]

Nope, not just you. The current crop of candidates outside of Romeny are more or less complete jokes. None of them are legit candidates. Romney is legit. Of course, his conservative bonafides are few and far between, with his strongest selling point being his private businesses. Which is great objectively speaking, but he's got no leg to stand on healthcare-wise and that's a huge loss of enthusiasm his base won't have come the general. He also can't stick to a position if his life depended on it and doesn't come off as genuine, which will hurt him. And his record from just 4-5 years ago is extremely moderate, really just plain liberal, and that's also going to hurt his base's enthusiasm come the general.

All in all, the conservative base gets riled up for extreme candidates as evidenced by their anti-science and anti-tax stances that a significant majority of Americans are against.

So not just you.

The people posting against his "observation" so far outweigh anyone confirming it.

Yeah good call here bud.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Well done calling me a troll for stating the obvious however.

Yeah but you're a troll.

 

[lopri]

Wasn't there an episode in which a Republican congressman had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh after criticizing him? I think that was a few years ago, but I was downright appalled by that incident. I mean, a U.S. representative (or was it a senator? I don't remember) who was elected by his constituency can't stand up to a lunatic radio (yes, RADIO) personality even on a principled ground, then you know there is something deeply wrong with that territory.

And the ongoing list of pathetic and insulting list of Republican female talking heads - Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Maggie Gallagher, Michelle Bachman,.. that's another phenomenon to study.

 

[monovillage]

Sometimes if you make a mistake or misinterpret what someone says, you give them an apology. I've done it in these forums, it sucks, but sometimes you have to admit to an error. That's probably the episode you were thinking about.