The flip-floppin' voters

[dank69]

You know what! most of these comments you could replace references to republicans with democrats then swap to a different decade in which the dems were out of the white house and the descriptions would still be accurate. Fact is the party out of the white house is always obstructionist to the party that holds the white house. It is the way our political system is designed.

Bullshit. The number of filibusters alone shows how full of shit you are.

 

[smackababy]

I don't get the whole "flip flop voters are bad" argument. Why should a voter be compelled to stick with a particular party if the issues they care about change and align against said party? Isn't that the best fucking scenario?

The worst voters are the morons who simply vote democrat / republican because that is their party, without knowing a fucking thing about any candidate.

 

[Jhhnn]

"We do not need the Republicans to get anything accomplished" 2008

As if that's an actual quote rather than a fabrication on your part.

Repub obstructionism even extends to faux congressional sessions so that recess appointments can't be made. The charts & figures have been posted many, many times yet you persist i defending what really is spite- If Repubs can't run govt, they'll be damned if they'll let to opposition do it well. Maybe that's because they don't do it well when they do run it & want to avoid honest comparisons.

If DC dogcatcher were a political appointment, they'd hold it up as long as possible.

 

[Jhhnn]

You know what! most of these comments you could replace references to republicans with democrats then swap to a different decade in which the dems were out of the white house and the descriptions would still be accurate. Fact is the party out of the white house is always obstructionist to the party that holds the white house. It is the way our political system is designed.

Absolutely false. From 2008 forward, Repubs have created the most obstructionist Congress in history.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't get the whole "flip flop voters are bad" argument. Why should a voter be compelled to stick with a particular party if the issues they care about change and align against said party? Isn't that the best fucking scenario?

The worst voters are the morons who simply vote democrat / republican because that is their party, without knowing a fucking thing about any candidate.

I'll jump on the bandwagon of your statements with banners and signs, circles and arrows on the back of each one -- held high.

But I'd said it before, and I'll say it again.

If ideologies hold anything of value, it is in bits and snippets and parts. If there's a wholesale ideology, it's a utopian vision that excludes various parts of reality -- the reality of how things have been, how they are, and how they'll continue to be, barring a tyrant who wishes to impose the whole enchilada.

Socialism? Maybe a toolbox of options.

Capitalism? A mainstay of the mixed economy -- another toolbox. And -- oh. The ACA. State exchanges -- a market solution with a public subsidy.

Belief systems are the refuge of lazy minds.

My own belief system is my very own. Let's say I find comfort in economic science and the relatively new field of public-choice economics.

I look back at the trail-signs and battlefields over the last seventy years. I took snap-shot copies of a thousand documents in the College Park archives in 2004, and I've absorbed tons of printed material.

I see -- that contrary to what George Will tried to say in an op-ed about 10 years ago -- that there is a military industrial complex. I then conclude that it has skewed decision-making for decades. Do I want to destroy it? No. Do I want to attenuate its political influence? Yes.

Colin Powell said a year or two ago that "Americans should have [the public goods] that they choose to have publicly provided."

I see a lot of nonsense: "Drown it in a bathtub," as Grover Norquist suggested. Then I recall op-eds from someone like Elliot Richardson. "It's a big country, so it's going to have a big government."

I don't pledge loyalty to the Democratic Party. I pledge to myself -- war without guns on the GOP because of its longstanding industrial base.

Suppose they nominated Colin Powell? {They won't, because I think he changed his voter registration.) I might play that other simplistic game: Vote for the man, not the party.

But here's what I see:

Perry -- Texas -- oil/defense and he's nuttier than squirrel shit
Cruz -- Texas -- oil/ defense and ditto
Walker -- Wisconsin -- in the Koch brother's hip pocket -- same industries
Christy -- New Jersey -- rational, but then there's Standard and Esso
Jindahl -- Louisiana -- big oil
Jeb Bush -- "Florida" but no less Texas -- big oil, armament industry going back to turn of last century; grandfather under scrutiny for financing the Reich; father assisted in Operation Zapata as an "intelligence asset" (not intrinsically bad - but -- there's that other thing.

To make fossil fuels obsolete for anything but plastics and pharmaceuticals, who do you want to lead the way? These guys?

Sorry. No cigar. They lost my trust only beginning with a speech in Fort Worth when I sat 30 feet from Reagan and heard absolutely nothing of value for an hour or two while I strugged to keep awake.

YOu may have to take the whole menu; it's not a smorgasbord. Frankly, though, I haven't heard anything coming from the Dems lately that makes me think they're "beyond my support." If they want to raise taxes, for my personal self-interest -- that's fine with me. Less taxes might be in my "self-interest," but there is something after all called "enlightened self-interest" and it's about a perception of "the public interest."

I've seen enough of the "drown it in the bathtub" madness. I'd almost say they oughta lock those people up. But there's no legal justification for it.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't get the whole "flip flop voters are bad" argument. Why should a voter be compelled to stick with a particular party if the issues they care about change and align against said party? Isn't that the best fucking scenario?

The worst voters are the morons who simply vote democrat / republican because that is their party, without knowing a fucking thing about any candidate.

The number of voters who actually 'flip flop' is pretty small these days. The primary difference in recent elections has been turnout. It's more a question of who votes than if people are changing who they vote for.

It's why the Democrats won pretty easily in 2008 and 2012 and got blown out in 2010 and 2014. The American public didn't wildly vacillate between competing ideologies, it's just that proportionally a lot fewer Democrats showed up to vote in the off year elections.

 

[bradly1101]

You know what! most of these comments you could replace references to republicans with democrats then swap to a different decade in which the dems were out of the white house and the descriptions would still be accurate. Fact is the party out of the white house is always obstructionist to the party that holds the white house. It is the way our political system is designed.

I can site numerous personal attacks waged from the right (the traditionalists who forward the tradition of attack), but can think of no examples of personal attacks coming from the left (the progressives who seem to have progressed beyond that). The action and reaction define the leanings. I'm talking about politicians here, not pundits.

The Regan/Carter debates were the seminal event in lowering the level of discourse. When logic isn't on your side, what's left but to attack? And the sheeple love it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The number of voters who actually 'flip flop' is pretty small these days. The primary difference in recent elections has been turnout. It's more a question of who votes than if people are changing who they vote for.

It's why the Democrats won pretty easily in 2008 and 2012 and got blown out in 2010 and 2014. The American public didn't wildly vacillate between competing ideologies, it's just that proportionally a lot fewer Democrats showed up to vote in the off year elections.

Your perceptions and understanding of this are spot-on.

The youth vote turned out for President O in '08. They'd already seen enough of the President Cornpone nonsense -- my biased remark, but that's the way it seems. They have a different world-view than the last of the "greatest generation" and even a component of the boomers.

But they're naïve. Put it another way: I was just as naïve until around the age of 35, and the wake-up after that took a long time. The eyes were only wide-open 13 years later. I'd been a statistician, a financial analyst, an economist and even an info-systems guy -- your "Renaissance Man" wannabe. But I never studied history; I'd never studied "communications science" and propaganda. I jumped into those fields around 1999 after retirement from two jobs.

Was I a sleep-walking news-sponge zombie for 30 years. Yes. So when I say that about my fellow citizens, it's not really an insult. And, of course, that may be just my opinion.

The youth-vote, with its naivete seemed to think as I did in the late-60s and the 70s that you just have to elect an enlightened President and everything will be fine.

But the strategy requires control of both houses of Congress, and that's how the youngsters fell down. Worse, a lot of Dems are lazy in this regard.

You mentioned low voter turnout, and I said in another thread: there's about a hundred million people eligible and/or registered who never turn out. If they refuse to vote "in protest," that's naïve. And it derives again from a certain aspect of narcissistic silliness: If I can't have what I want, why bother?

That's why a good ol' war can energize the public to one, simplistic mind-set. Without the urgency, with steaks on the table, the obvious trappings of self-interest satisfied, nobody accepts the responsibility.

But if they did? Richard Wolfe actually wrote an e-mail to me about that. You'd see a grass-roots movement in this country unparalleled in human history or at least in recent times.

And a lot of the talking heads hoping to get into the debates this year would be struggling for a different constituency instead of the "keep gov'mint outta my Medicare" crowd, the paranoids and the idealogues.

 

[bradly1101]

I'll jump on the bandwagon of your statements with banners and signs, circles and arrows on the back of each one -- held high.

But I'd said it before, and I'll say it again.

If ideologies hold anything of value, it is in bits and snippets and parts. If there's a wholesale ideology, it's a utopian vision that excludes various parts of reality -- the reality of how things have been, how they are, and how they'll continue to be, barring a tyrant who wishes to impose the whole enchilada.

Socialism? Maybe a toolbox of options.

Capitalism? A mainstay of the mixed economy -- another toolbox. And -- oh. The ACA. State exchanges -- a market solution with a public subsidy.

Belief systems are the refuge of lazy minds.

My own belief system is my very own. Let's say I find comfort in economic science and the relatively new field of public-choice economics.

I look back at the trail-signs and battlefields over the last seventy years. I took snap-shot copies of a thousand documents in the College Park archives in 2004, and I've absorbed tons of printed material.

I see -- that contrary to what George Will tried to say in an op-ed about 10 years ago -- that there is a military industrial complex. I then conclude that it has skewed decision-making for decades. Do I want to destroy it? No. Do I want to attenuate its political influence? Yes.

Colin Powell said a year or two ago that "Americans should have [the public goods] that they choose to have publicly provided."

I see a lot of nonsense: "Drown it in a bathtub," as Grover Norquist suggested. Then I recall op-eds from someone like Elliot Richardson. "It's a big country, so it's going to have a big government."

I don't pledge loyalty to the Democratic Party. I pledge to myself -- war without guns on the GOP because of its longstanding industrial base.

Suppose they nominated Colin Powell? {They won't, because I think he changed his voter registration.) I might play that other simplistic game: Vote for the man, not the party.

But here's what I see:

Perry -- Texas -- oil/defense and he's nuttier than squirrel shit
Cruz -- Texas -- oil/ defense and ditto
Walker -- Wisconsin -- in the Koch brother's hip pocket -- same industries
Christy -- New Jersey -- rational, but then there's Standard and Esso
Jindahl -- Louisiana -- big oil
Jeb Bush -- "Florida" but no less Texas -- big oil, armament industry going back to turn of last century; grandfather under scrutiny for financing the Reich; father assisted in Operation Zapata as an "intelligence asset" (not intrinsically bad - but -- there's that other thing.

To make fossil fuels obsolete for anything but plastics and pharmaceuticals, who do you want to lead the way? These guys?

Sorry. No cigar. They lost my trust only beginning with a speech in Fort Worth when I sat 30 feet from Reagan and heard absolutely nothing of value for an hour or two while I strugged to keep awake.

YOu may have to take the whole menu; it's not a smorgasbord. Frankly, though, I haven't heard anything coming from the Dems lately that makes me think they're "beyond my support." If they want to raise taxes, for my personal self-interest -- that's fine with me. Less taxes might be in my "self-interest," but there is something after all called "enlightened self-interest" and it's about a perception of "the public interest."

I've seen enough of the "drown it in the bathtub" madness. I'd almost say they oughta lock those people up. But there's no legal justification for it.

Did Kennedy say it best? "Ask not..." A utopia may not be attainable but if that sentiment ever changes the intentions of the wealthy our entire way of living (including the infrastructure) could be elevated. I don't understand not wanting to give back to society if it has been so good to them. Or is greed indeed good?

The fact is that there are not enough good jobs for the rise in population, and the education needed is too expensive. If everyone continues to breed, some of us will require assistance. The more money people have will help drive the economy and even "trickle up" to the wealthy when people buy their product or service. A lack of available abortion clinics only exacerbates the problem as unwanted children must be supported. Those opposing them also oppose assisting the poor. Hypocrisy?

We need a new way. The right path can never be discovered among all this bickering and "money politics."

 

[ivwshane]

Self hate must run deep in liberals, the most angry and hateful people I've run across in my life have been liberals. This same attitude/hatred is displayed over and over by liberals in this forum.

Yep, ignorance is bliss and righties are some of the dumbest mother fuckers out there!

 

[bradly1101]

I celebrate the discourse but I can't abide by the low blows (from either side), and I don't think calling out the low blows is a low blow.

Last Sunday Mr. Sanders was interviewed by Disney (ahem, I meant ABC) News and the anchor tried to get Bernie to call Hillary dishonest. He didn't take the bait. Classy. (not a word used much when talking about politicians)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sanders is from another time like McCain. They both have respect for the office unlike our younger leaders.

 

[werepossum]

Did Kennedy say it best? "Ask not..." A utopia may not be attainable but if that sentiment ever changes the intentions of the wealthy our entire way of living (including the infrastructure) could be elevated. I don't understand not wanting to give back to society if it has been so good to them. Or is greed indeed good?

The fact is that there are not enough good jobs for the rise in population, and the education needed is too expensive. If everyone continues to breed, some of us will require assistance. The more money people have will help drive the economy and even "trickle up" to the wealthy when people buy their product or service. A lack of available abortion clinics only exacerbates the problem as unwanted children must be supported. Those opposing them also oppose assisting the poor. Hypocrisy?

We need a new way. The right path can never be discovered among all this bickering and "money politics."

Ask yourself how "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turned into "Ask not what your country can do for you, demand that your country do for you whatever you want." Kennedy's speech was about selflessness. The modern Democrat Party is completely about having government take wealth from other people and transfer it to you. There is little smoke about what is best for the country, just a lot of promises about what government is going to do for you, the Democrat voter. Free health care, free day care, free college, free housing, free cell phones, free Internet . . .

Then ask yourself why it is that, having won the future, the Democrat Party is more vitriolic than ever. You guys pretty much own the universities and the media, you got the immigration quotas you wanted to move the country away from being a majority white European nation, you got the porous borders and non-enforcement to give you the rampant illegal immigration you wanted. We're moving toward a two class system of uniformly low paid workers with a small, highly paid Brahmin class ruling them. You have largely succeeded in establishing group identity into law, supplanting individual identity. You have largely sold the American public on the concept that things which other people must labor to produce are rights that they are owed, on demanding things while hating the people who best provide them. There is little chance going forward of the Republican Party succeeding as anything other than the Democrat Lite Party. Why then are you less happy than ever?

 

[fskimospy]

Ask yourself how "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turned into "Ask not what your country can do for you, demand that your country do for you whatever you want." Kennedy's speech was about selflessness. The modern Democrat Party is completely about having government take wealth from other people and transfer it to you. There is little smoke about what is best for the country, just a lot of promises about what government is going to do for you, the Democrat voter. Free health care, free day care, free college, free housing, free cell phones, free Internet . . .

Then ask yourself why it is that, having won the future, the Democrat Party is more vitriolic than ever. You guys pretty much own the universities and the media, you got the immigration quotas you wanted to move the country away from being a majority white European nation, you got the porous borders and non-enforcement to give you the rampant illegal immigration you wanted. We're moving toward a two class system of uniformly low paid workers with a small, highly paid Brahmin class ruling them. You have largely succeeded in establishing group identity into law, supplanting individual identity. You have largely sold the American public on the concept that things which other people must labor to produce are rights that they are owed, on demanding things while hating the people who best provide them.

This is lunacy. Do you actually believe this nonsense?

There is little chance going forward of the Republican Party succeeding as anything other than the Democrat Lite Party.

Except of course that actual empirical analysis of the Republican Party shows that it is more conservative now than it has ever been. Ever. (oh wait, let me guess, the researchers who determine this are part of The Conspiracy)

Think back to this famous Eisenhower quote:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Do you think the number of self-identified conservatives that want to do one or more of those things is still negligible? (they do remain stupid, however)

It is baffling to me that while your preferred political party moves further to the right than it has ever been in its entire history your complaint is that they've become too far to the left. How radicalized have you guys become where you can't see this?

Why then are you less happy than ever?

Have you considered that you might be projecting? Of the two major political groups, which one do you think has been angrier recently?

 

[bradly1101]

Ask yourself how "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turned into "Ask not what your country can do for you, demand that your country do for you whatever you want." Kennedy's speech was about selflessness. The modern Democrat Party is completely about having government take wealth from other people and transfer it to the needy. There is little smoke about what is best for the country, just a lot of promises about what government is going to do for all citizens. Affordable health care, affordable day care, affordable college, affordable housing, affordable cell phones, affordable Internet for people who need assistance.

Then ask yourself why it is that, having won the future, the Democrat Party is more vitriolic than ever (citation please). You guys pretty much own the universities and the media, businesses got the immigration quotas they wanted [for cheap labor] to move the country away from being a majority white European nation (? - who cares about that except for bigots?), you got the porous borders and non-enforcement to give you the rampant illegal immigration businesses wanted (remember Reagan was the great giver of amnesty - Obama is deporting like [literally] gangbusters). We're moving toward a two class system of uniformly low paid workers with a small, highly paid Brahmin class ruling them (the left wants and drives that? That started with Reagan). You have largely succeeded in establishing group identity into law, supplanting individual identity (?). You have largely sold the American public on the concept that things which other people must labor to produce are rights that they are owed, on demanding things while hating(?) the people who best provide them. There is little chance going forward of the Republican Party succeeding as anything other than the Democrat Lite Party. Why then are you less happy than ever?

Who said we're unhappy?

I fixed some things and questioned others. You sure think you know the left's motivations, but we're not as dark and calculating as you imply. We want a better world, tell me a policy that doesn't contain that motivation:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Edit: changed inexpensive to affordable

 

[sm625]

Back in the nineties we had what I would call a fairly good president. Sure he made some legislative and personal gaffes, but I believe he left the country in better shape than he found it

It is precisely your beliefs that lead to the situation we find ourselves in now. Slick Willie was exactly that. A slick politician. But he did NOT do right by this country. He signed the telecom act of 1996. He signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley. He is as big of a failure as the rest of these CFR controlled clown puppets. But so many of you actually believe some fairy tale about him. As long as you continue to believe in fairy tales, you will get the government you deserve. Millions of braindead liberals actually think he ran a surplus! Ha ha. So frickin stupid. The national debt went up every single year during his presidency. That is a cold hard indesputable fact. But you braindead zombies still believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

These numbers are from www.treasurydirect.gov

09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It is precisely your beliefs that lead to the situation we find ourselves in now. Slick Willie was exactly that. A slick politician. But he did NOT do right by this country. He signed the telecom act of 1996. He signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley. He is as big of a failure as the rest of these CFR controlled clown puppets. But so many of you actually believe some fairy tale about him. As long as you continue to believe in fairy tales, you will get the government you deserve. Millions of braindead liberals actually think he ran a surplus! Ha ha. So frickin stupid. The national debt went up every single year during his presidency. That is a cold hard indesputable fact. But you braindead zombies still believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

These numbers are from www.treasurydirect.gov

09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00

Wrong on at least a couple points.

First, a dollar in 1987 was worth a lot more than a dollar today, so you can't just compare the absolute values. As far as introducing "inflation propelled by flooding the money supply," the money supply had been managed more effectively after the time of Paul Volcker in the '70s. And it's just simple economic fact that without inflation a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, given the potential for generating interest returns.

Second, the national debt at the end of the Carter Administration was about 29% of GDP. At the end of the Reagan Administration it was 51%, and at the end of the Clinton Administration it was 51%. These numbers are important, because the ability to sustain government borrowing is synonymous with growth and the level of GDP. So your raw numbers, not void of meaning, are a lot less meaningful.

The problem with the national debt, I will agree with you, is "crowding out." It squeezes down useful public spending, and it makes the available money that could be borrowed for alternative use in the rest of the economy in short supply.

But we're awash today in piles of money seeking useful investment. You wouldn't see interest rates so low, regardless "quantitative easing" and similar factors, if that weren't true. This is also how the housing bubble arose, to make funds available to unqualified lenders for homes they couldn't afford. Add to that the inflation rate from Clinton forward: paltry slivers of nothing each and every year. By comparison, the inflation rates during the '70s were consistently enormous.

If you don't remember those years for being too young or just being historically myopic -- I do.

And finally, you're putting your partisan cart before the reality horse -- a common malady for those who think "Slick Willie" didn't really "win" the '92 election. Such people cherry-pick their facts. The world only makes sense to you according to what you want it to be, and not what it is. So cherry-picking facts makes it possible to continue the free-speech dialogue a lot longer than needed, because ultimately -- politics is about the search for Power and not the search for the Truth.

And if you want to talk about who is seeking Power, it's a relative matter. Your side has always supported the "unwarranted influence" of concentrated industries, oligopolies, monopolies and rent-seekers, which really don't operate in competitive conditions. They seek to control the institutions of government, either to keep the money flowing their way, to avoid regulation, to use military power when there appears to be a material advantage to such pursuits on behalf of their industry.

You can't see these things, because you buy into the wholesale ideologies, simplifications and other trout-fly nonsense, thinking that if you vote for someone, you control them. The opposite is most likely true, and if it can't be proven conclusively, the largest compilation of facts will raise a high suspicion of it.

Of course, you aren't alone in thinking "I'm smart; I think independently; I can't be influenced by misinformation."

And that's precisely the set of reasons that you may likely fall under such influences.

 

[Bird222]

Nevermind

 

[fskimospy]

Just a quick reminder, in a previous thread sm625 said the feds were going to shut down GDPNow because it showed poor growth and in this thread he's bought into the conspiracy about the Council on Foreign Relations.

He is a certified crazy person.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Nevermind

Is that in response to my preceding post? Did you have something to say?

I'd be interested. "Nevermind" -- what?

 

[werepossum]

This is lunacy. Do you actually believe this nonsense?

Except of course that actual empirical analysis of the Republican Party shows that it is more conservative now than it has ever been. Ever. (oh wait, let me guess, the researchers who determine this are part of The Conspiracy)

Think back to this famous Eisenhower quote:

Do you think the number of self-identified conservatives that want to do one or more of those things is still negligible? (they do remain stupid, however)

It is baffling to me that while your preferred political party moves further to the right than it has ever been in its entire history your complaint is that they've become too far to the left. How radicalized have you guys become where you can't see this?

Have you considered that you might be projecting? Of the two major political groups, which one do you think has been angrier recently?

Reading is fundamental. My point wasn't that the GOP has shifted to the left. My point was that the GOP MUST shift to the left in the future to compete for the White House.

Who said we're unhappy?

I fixed some things and questioned others. You sure think you know the left's motivations, but we're not as dark and calculating as you imply. We want a better world, tell me a policy that doesn't contain that motivation:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Edit: changed inexpensive to affordable

Well, you certainly SEEM unhappy. For one thing, you started a thread lambasting voters for not giving your preferred party complete control over the government. There are many of us who cringe at the thought of either party gaining complete control.

For the record, I do not doubt that the left wants a better world. I simply don't agree with many of your criteria for "better world". Also, Obama as the Great Deporter is as discredited as phrenology. He simply started counting people turned away at the border and people sent "deport thyself" letters as deportations, unlike any previous President.

EDIT: As far as who cares about the nation moving away from being a majority white European nation, that would be the Democrats. Ted Kennedy led the successful fight to change our immigration policy from favoring educated Europeans to favoring uneducated, poor third worlders.

 

[bradly1101]

Reading is fundamental. My point wasn't that the GOP has shifted to the left. My point was that the GOP MUST shift to the left in the future to compete for the White House.


Well, you certainly SEEM unhappy. For one thing, you started a thread lambasting voters for not giving your preferred party complete control over the government. There are many of us who cringe at the thought of either party gaining complete control.

For the record, I do not doubt that the left wants a better world. I simply don't agree with many of your criteria for "better world". Also, Obama as the Great Deporter is as discredited as phrenology. He simply started counting people turned away at the border and people sent "deport thyself" letters as deportations, unlike any previous President.

EDIT: As far as who cares about the nation moving away from being a majority white European nation, that would be the Democrats. Ted Kennedy led the successful fight to change our immigration policy from favoring educated Europeans to favoring uneducated, poor third worlders.

I truly don't care if we have republican or democratic elected officials. I have agreed with some on the right about fiscal conservancy, but in my opinion "conservatives" aren't that conservative when it comes to spending. Bush knew that he had to keep the wars off the books because the books were starting to look really bad after his tax cuts.

I'm not as much lambasting voters as I am the ones who don't vote (or when folks are prevented from voting after the supreme court took away the voting rights act's teeth - thank goodness Texas just a smack on the hand.

All I care about is that our elected officials rule with logic instead of being power hungry, greedy, obstructionist (to needed legislation like an infrastructure/jobs bill), sexist, corrupt... But all that seems to be built in. I feel this way about Democrats as well as Republicans; Menendez (D-NJ) has particularly raised my ire as did Obama when he yielded to the health insurance lobby and didn't include a public, non-profit option for consumers to choose for their plan. Fox News even sent memos for it to be called the "government option" which polled worse and was exactly what the lobby and the industry wanted - they knew they'd have to get lean really fast to compete.

Why is there even a discussion about racial changes in America? Did we forget that we took this land from another race? Did we forget that some of our white ancestors faced the same bigotry? At least my Irish ones did. Color can't matter because otherwise it matters too much to people of all races. I live in a mixed city and have been the subject of racist comments and a threat. It really stings, I can only imagine how a minority member must feel.