• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The Republican Party: The Greatest Marketing Machine Ever

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not really sure of that. I will admit that the talking heads still bash Bush on issues like spending, and I will also admit that Bush is not the ideal conservative to a lot of conservatives, but I don't think that the party overall has a tone of accepting Bush-conservatism until something REALLY conservative comes along. Among conservatives there has been wild support for warrantless wiretapping and anti-gay marriage initiatives, neither of which fit with the original definition of small government. I'll admit that you guys dont' mesh exactly with Bush on all the issues, but that doesn't make you real conservatives either.
As they say on Hollywood Squares: I disagree :)
Wiretapping of people talking to suspected terrorists in other countries comes under the strong on defense part of conservatives.
Anti-gay marriage is more about protecting the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman than an attack on gays. The gays just frame it that way because it makes a better argument. Remember when gays tried to say that gay marriage was a civil rights issue and all the blacks freaked out? Most, I think, mainstream conservatives would support some kind of legalized "unions" between gays in order to protects their rights via death, community property etc.

As far as conservatives supporting Bush till something comes along I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war, but still voted for him because they thought he was better than Bush. When it comes to Presidential politics we are stuck with what we get and must vote for the person closest to our own beliefs.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Where in the world---Prof John---does compassionate consevative come from when talking about GWB---its simply a title he awarded to himself---there is not a compassionate or humane bone in GWB's body.---and he's a divider not a uniter also.

In regard to Reagan---its again a title awarded to himself---what did Regan conserve??---as he set the then standing world records on defecit spending---while his budget director was telling the democratic congress---spend spend spend---so to that extent both the D&R share the blame.

With Clinton the D&Rs can share the credit for a balanced budget.

But with GWB---the new world record holder on defecit spending---the R's have 100% of the blame.

And again you are stuck on slogans---image over substance---face it--the Republican party is now the totally waco party---out in fantasy land while they botch up everything they touch.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,510
3,264
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Where in the world---Prof John---does compassionate consevative come from when talking about GWB---its simply a title he awarded to himself---there is not a compassionate or humane bone in GWB's body.---and he's a divider not a uniter also.

In regard to Reagan---its again a title awarded to himself---what did Regan conserve??---as he set the then standing world records on defecit spending---while his budget director was telling the democratic congress---spend spend spend---so to that extent both the D&R share the blame.

With Clinton the D&Rs can share the credit for a balanced budget.

But with GWB---the new world record holder on defecit spending---the R's have 100% of the blame.

And again you are stuck on slogans---image over substance---face it--the Republican party is now the totally waco party---out in fantasy land while they botch up everything they touch.
Bush has boosted aid to African victims of HIV and other good things.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
This is old news, I've said many times they are the greatest Marketing (Brainwashing) Machine ever.

Of course they've won elections, that's what a great Marketing (Brainwashing) regiment does for you.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not really sure of that. I will admit that the talking heads still bash Bush on issues like spending, and I will also admit that Bush is not the ideal conservative to a lot of conservatives, but I don't think that the party overall has a tone of accepting Bush-conservatism until something REALLY conservative comes along. Among conservatives there has been wild support for warrantless wiretapping and anti-gay marriage initiatives, neither of which fit with the original definition of small government. I'll admit that you guys dont' mesh exactly with Bush on all the issues, but that doesn't make you real conservatives either.
As they say on Hollywood Squares: I disagree :)
Wiretapping of people talking to suspected terrorists in other countries comes under the strong on defense part of conservatives.
Anti-gay marriage is more about protecting the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman than an attack on gays. The gays just frame it that way because it makes a better argument. Remember when gays tried to say that gay marriage was a civil rights issue and all the blacks freaked out? Most, I think, mainstream conservatives would support some kind of legalized "unions" between gays in order to protects their rights via death, community property etc.

As far as conservatives supporting Bush till something comes along I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war, but still voted for him because they thought he was better than Bush. When it comes to Presidential politics we are stuck with what we get and must vote for the person closest to our own beliefs.
I didn't say conservatives haven't been able to make rational arguments for those things, I'm saying that they don't really fit with the old-school conservative ideals. This new thing of being "strong on national defense and family values" is really a new idea, at least in terms of overriding everything else. The old conservative ideas were far more about the place of government in general to NOT interfere with our lives than in specifically how they interfered. Of course warrantless wiretaps and anti-gay marriage initiatives fit within the new conservative movement, I'm just saying that it doesn't really look a lot like the OLD conservative movement.

That's why I'm saying conservatives really aren't any different from the big government liberals. Once you accept that government has the right to intrude into most aspects of life for the good of society, the rest is really just details. Being "strong on defense" and "protecting family values" are reasonable arguments, but really not fundamentally different from supporting "helping the poor" and "protecting the environment". While all of those are perfectly reasonable political motivations, none of them are very libertarian, the essence of the original conservative ideology, that government is NOT a multi-use tool to solve all our problems.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,230
1
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not really sure of that. I will admit that the talking heads still bash Bush on issues like spending, and I will also admit that Bush is not the ideal conservative to a lot of conservatives, but I don't think that the party overall has a tone of accepting Bush-conservatism until something REALLY conservative comes along. Among conservatives there has been wild support for warrantless wiretapping and anti-gay marriage initiatives, neither of which fit with the original definition of small government. I'll admit that you guys dont' mesh exactly with Bush on all the issues, but that doesn't make you real conservatives either.
As they say on Hollywood Squares: I disagree :)
Wiretapping of people talking to suspected terrorists in other countries comes under the strong on defense part of conservatives.
Anti-gay marriage is more about protecting the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman than an attack on gays. The gays just frame it that way because it makes a better argument. Remember when gays tried to say that gay marriage was a civil rights issue and all the blacks freaked out? Most, I think, mainstream conservatives would support some kind of legalized "unions" between gays in order to protects their rights via death, community property etc.

As far as conservatives supporting Bush till something comes along I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war, but still voted for him because they thought he was better than Bush. When it comes to Presidential politics we are stuck with what we get and must vote for the person closest to our own beliefs.
I didn't say conservatives haven't been able to make rational arguments for those things, I'm saying that they don't really fit with the old-school conservative ideals. This new thing of being "strong on national defense and family values" is really a new idea, at least in terms of overriding everything else. The old conservative ideas were far more about the place of government in general to NOT interfere with our lives than in specifically how they interfered. Of course warrantless wiretaps and anti-gay marriage initiatives fit within the new conservative movement, I'm just saying that it doesn't really look a lot like the OLD conservative movement.

That's why I'm saying conservatives really aren't any different from the big government liberals. Once you accept that government has the right to intrude into most aspects of life for the good of society, the rest is really just details. Being "strong on defense" and "protecting family values" are reasonable arguments, but really not fundamentally different from supporting "helping the poor" and "protecting the environment". While all of those are perfectly reasonable political motivations, none of them are very libertarian, the essence of the original conservative ideology, that government is NOT a multi-use tool to solve all our problems.
Neo-cons are reaching to their religious voting base which cares more about their own moral code than limited governent. Thus you have gay-marriage bans, protecting family values, heavy "defense" spending etc.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sandorski
The award for Greatest Marketing Machine Ever has to go to the Nazi Party of Germany. Current Republicans get honourable mention though.
Good lord. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this. Here goes...


How so? What election did the Nazis win? And what elections did they win after they assumed power? Oh wait, they didn't, because they never won an election and after they took power they stopped holding elections.

Your comparison has no grounding in reality much less any relevancy to this thread. Again, this thread is an examination of how national elections are run by the major parties (in this case the republican party).

PS. Read a history book.


Well the Nazi Party was elected to parliament, and the last election held before Hitler became Chancellor they garnered 33% of the vote, which was a decline from the previous election.

So you are sorta right, they weren't directly elected to absolute power, but they didn't just pop out of nowhere and stage a coup.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
We have a thread like this already...
Don't you guys have anything else to complain about?
Canadians who think they know something about economics and butt into threads about U.S. politics? :D

Originally posted by: sandorski
The award for Greatest Marketing Machine Ever has to go to the Nazi Party of Germany. Current Republicans get honourable mention though.
The current Republican party has taken much of the Nazi propaganda playbook and made it their own.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,833
2,929
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sandorski
The award for Greatest Marketing Machine Ever has to go to the Nazi Party of Germany. Current Republicans get honourable mention though.
Good lord. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this. Here goes...


How so? What election did the Nazis win? And what elections did they win after they assumed power? Oh wait, they didn't, because they never won an election and after they took power they stopped holding elections.

Your comparison has no grounding in reality much less any relevancy to this thread. Again, this thread is an examination of how national elections are run by the major parties (in this case the republican party).

PS. Read a history book.


Well the Nazi Party was elected to parliament, and the last election held before Hitler became Chancellor they garnered 33% of the vote, which was a decline from the previous election.

So you are sorta right, they weren't directly elected to absolute power, but they didn't just pop out of nowhere and stage a coup.
Their(Nazis) "greatest" work went beyond marketing for elections. How they maintained power and grew their power after suspending hthe Constitution was a true "masterpeice". The Rallies were quite impressive and so was the way they completely silenced any critics through fear and intimidation. Only a few dared to work against them in secret, far fewer dared to voice any opposition. The German people were so in line that even when all was revealed they were overwhelmed with the evil they tolerated, yet at the same time knew that they should have known it from the outset.

When I posted my original post in this thread I in no way was attempting to draw a parallel between the 2, I was merely nixing the idea that the Republicans were/are the "Greatest Marketing Machine Ever", because they are not even close. However, many of the tactics used by the Republicans bare slight resemblance to those of the Nazi's. Villification of a group, appeal to Nationalism, calling the opposition unpatriotic, etc are all similar, albeit far less severe, to Nazi tactics. As long as there's a vocal Opposition and as long as that Opposition is heard there is a gaurantee of safety. Without that, it's anyone's guess as to where things would go.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war
Wrong. Kerry voted for a law that allowed Bush to use the threat of force to get Saddam to agree to inspections, and to use force ONLY if Saddam refused. It worked - Saddam allowed the inspections. Bush broke the agreement and ordered the inspectors out of Iraq three months before the inspections were expected to complete, and started the war.

Too many Americans have been given a phony story.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,550
666
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war
Wrong. Kerry voted for a law that allowed Bush to use the threat of force to get Saddam to agree to inspections, and to use force ONLY if Saddam refused. It worked - Saddam allowed the inspections. Bush broke the agreement and ordered the inspectors out of Iraq three months before the inspections were expected to complete, and started the war.

Too many Americans have been given a phony story.
QFT
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,255
1
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sandorski
The award for Greatest Marketing Machine Ever has to go to the Nazi Party of Germany. Current Republicans get honourable mention though.
Good lord. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this. Here goes...


How so? What election did the Nazis win? And what elections did they win after they assumed power? Oh wait, they didn't, because they never won an election and after they took power they stopped holding elections.

Your comparison has no grounding in reality much less any relevancy to this thread. Again, this thread is an examination of how national elections are run by the major parties (in this case the republican party).

PS. Read a history book.


Well the Nazi Party was elected to parliament, and the last election held before Hitler became Chancellor they garnered 33% of the vote, which was a decline from the previous election.

So you are sorta right, they weren't directly elected to absolute power, but they didn't just pop out of nowhere and stage a coup.
Their(Nazis) "greatest" work went beyond marketing for elections. How they maintained power and grew their power after suspending hthe Constitution was a true "masterpeice". The Rallies were quite impressive and so was the way they completely silenced any critics through fear and intimidation. Only a few dared to work against them in secret, far fewer dared to voice any opposition. The German people were so in line that even when all was revealed they were overwhelmed with the evil they tolerated, yet at the same time knew that they should have known it from the outset.

When I posted my original post in this thread I in no way was attempting to draw a parallel between the 2, I was merely nixing the idea that the Republicans were/are the "Greatest Marketing Machine Ever", because they are not even close. However, many of the tactics used by the Republicans bare slight resemblance to those of the Nazi's. Villification of a group, appeal to Nationalism, calling the opposition unpatriotic, etc are all similar, albeit far less severe, to Nazi tactics. As long as there's a vocal Opposition and as long as that Opposition is heard there is a gaurantee of safety. Without that, it's anyone's guess as to where things would go.
Threats, coercion and intimidation are not marketing. The initial sales job that Hitler laid on the German people was brilliant, but it wasn't what enabled the Nazis to hold power. The people rallied around the original message but once his power was secure, the need for marketing was replaced by threats and coercion from those with the power, using whatever tactics they felt were necessary to hold on to that power including the execution and imprisonment of their enemies.

What sets the Rs apart in this category is that they can't operate that way. They have to market themselves to a group of customers who have the free will to choose their product. That is very defferent than how Hitler held power. Right now they have what appears to be an inferior product to sell. And make no mistake about it... they HAVE to sell it. They can't just jam it down the throats of americans and jail anyone who opposes them.

To sell a war is one thing. To get the populace to keep choosing your product when that war goes south is... brilliant.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,833
2,929
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sandorski
The award for Greatest Marketing Machine Ever has to go to the Nazi Party of Germany. Current Republicans get honourable mention though.
Good lord. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this. Here goes...


How so? What election did the Nazis win? And what elections did they win after they assumed power? Oh wait, they didn't, because they never won an election and after they took power they stopped holding elections.

Your comparison has no grounding in reality much less any relevancy to this thread. Again, this thread is an examination of how national elections are run by the major parties (in this case the republican party).

PS. Read a history book.


Well the Nazi Party was elected to parliament, and the last election held before Hitler became Chancellor they garnered 33% of the vote, which was a decline from the previous election.

So you are sorta right, they weren't directly elected to absolute power, but they didn't just pop out of nowhere and stage a coup.
Their(Nazis) "greatest" work went beyond marketing for elections. How they maintained power and grew their power after suspending hthe Constitution was a true "masterpeice". The Rallies were quite impressive and so was the way they completely silenced any critics through fear and intimidation. Only a few dared to work against them in secret, far fewer dared to voice any opposition. The German people were so in line that even when all was revealed they were overwhelmed with the evil they tolerated, yet at the same time knew that they should have known it from the outset.

When I posted my original post in this thread I in no way was attempting to draw a parallel between the 2, I was merely nixing the idea that the Republicans were/are the "Greatest Marketing Machine Ever", because they are not even close. However, many of the tactics used by the Republicans bare slight resemblance to those of the Nazi's. Villification of a group, appeal to Nationalism, calling the opposition unpatriotic, etc are all similar, albeit far less severe, to Nazi tactics. As long as there's a vocal Opposition and as long as that Opposition is heard there is a gaurantee of safety. Without that, it's anyone's guess as to where things would go.
Threats, coercion and intimidation are not marketing. The initial sales job that Hitler laid on the German people was brilliant, but it wasn't what enabled the Nazis to hold power. The people rallied around the original message but once his power was secure, the need for marketing was replaced by threats and coercion from those with the power, using whatever tactics they felt were necessary to hold on to that power including the execution and imprisonment of their enemies.

What sets the Rs apart in this category is that they can't operate that way. They have to market themselves to a group of customers who have the free will to choose their product. That is very defferent than how Hitler held power. Right now they have what appears to be an inferior product to sell. And make no mistake about it... they HAVE to sell it. They can't just jam it down the throats of americans and jail anyone who opposes them.

To sell a war is one thing. To get the populace to keep choosing your product when that war goes south is... brilliant.
Marketing was still necessary for the Nazi's. Tthe Volkswagen, Autobahn, Military buildup, and scores of other projects were all part of it. Fear and Intimidation was a very small part of it overall, the German People were dizzy from all the "progress" going on around them and Hitler was reaching Godlike status well into the war. The marketing continued right through to the end, though it's effect waned significantly the last few years.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war
Wrong. Kerry voted for a law that allowed Bush to use the threat of force to get Saddam to agree to inspections, and to use force ONLY if Saddam refused. It worked - Saddam allowed the inspections. Bush broke the agreement and ordered the inspectors out of Iraq three months before the inspections were expected to complete, and started the war.

Too many Americans have been given a phony story.
Check out the title of the resolution
"AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002"
What you are saying is revisionist history by Democrats who are trying to appeal to their base, ala "I voted for the war before I voted against it"
Notice it does not say authorization for the use of military force IF Saddam does not do x x and x.
After this was passed we went before the UN and got yet ANOTHER resolution (1441) against Saddam, I believe it was number 11, and despite calling for "immediate cooperation" this is what Has Blix said when he issued his report.
"It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome. And UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues. "
Given yet another chance to play along Saddam delayed and because of that Bush attacked.

hmmm Let's read what Hillary said when she voted for the use of military force....
Reasons for the war
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
and
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
Wow even then everyone thought Saddam and al-Qaeda were connected, and no one talked about Saddam having anything to do with 9-11.
On why we don't need the UN
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.... But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act
It's not a pre-emptive war, but a war to hold Saddam responsible for the actions he failed to take.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
and finally, the best part
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Wow even Hillary says it was not a rush to war, guess back to the drawing board with that argument guys.

Hillary's speech
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
No No NO Prof John----this resolution was a mistake--based on flawed and cherry picked intelligence.

And this "use these powers wisely" says it all----as President GWB rushed off to war---and now embraces dictators far worse than Saddam---and screws up everything he touches.

But when it comes to democrats I am likely to excited about---Hillary is way lower than Kerry on my list---when it comes to the wise leader and the vision thing---we need to look at those who saw this rush for war then as the sham we now know it was.

And on the totally retarted leader list--------GWB takes the cake---and is totally dishonest to boot.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,255
1
61
The most interesting revelation about this thread is most people's inability to separate the players from the process. Even when asked to focus soley on the process, most of us can't let go of our feelings regarding the participants.

And IMO this is why nothing ever gets solved.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The most interesting revelation about this thread is most people's inability to separate the players from the process. Even when asked to focus soley on the process, most of us can't let go of our feelings regarding the participants.

And IMO this is why nothing ever gets solved.
100% correct :)

This forum is not about solving things, but about pointing fingers.
I am only here because of it causes me to think about what I believe and to do research and find evidence to back up my beliefs, hence my tendency to fill my posts with links and quotes. :)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
John, you are beginning to cross the line into dishonesty.

I'll let you look up the quotes for the following, so you can redeem yourself:

- Bush told Congress that the bill was *not* a vote for war, your 'argument' by quoting its title notwithstanding. My post had several facts supporting this.

- Hans Blix, the man who was responsible, appointed by the UN, for reporting whether Saddam was complying with the inspections. He reported to the UN the small ways in which Saddam was not complying - the ones you quote out of context - and he said, which you do not mention, that he *opposed* the use of force, saying compliance was adequate.

- 1441 did not authorize the US to invade Iraq. That's part of how Bush got it passed, and why Blair and he wanted another resoluion for war - one which Bush was unable to get passed.

- You quote Hillary's speech which, like Kerry's, makes clear over and over that the vote was for the president to have the tool needed to get Saddam to agree to inspections. It worked, Saddam complied with the demand for inspections after that, as Hans Blix said.

Bush broke his agreement with the congress by going to war during the middle of the inspections, three months before they would complete and would have determined there were no WMD.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The most interesting revelation about this thread is most people's inability to separate the players from the process. Even when asked to focus soley on the process, most of us can't let go of our feelings regarding the participants.

And IMO this is why nothing ever gets solved.
You start a thread calling the liars that are currently have running our country "The Greatest Marketing Machine Ever" and then expect rationale discussion about the process and not the participants?

I'm sorry, but I have this thing about being lied to and I can't seem to seperate one from the other.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,255
1
61
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The most interesting revelation about this thread is most people's inability to separate the players from the process. Even when asked to focus soley on the process, most of us can't let go of our feelings regarding the participants.

And IMO this is why nothing ever gets solved.
You start a thread calling the liars that are currently have running our country "The Greatest Marketing Machine Ever" and then expect rationale discussion about the process and not the participants?

I'm sorry, but I have this thing about being lied to and I can't seem to seperate one from the other.
Then you missed the point. Nowhere in the link or the OP was the Republican message mentioned nor was there any judgement made about the character of the party. It was entirely about the mechanics of how they get people out to vote for them and how they manage to keep beating the Ds when any rational person would say they have no chance.

Finding out who has alumni license plates and then getting people from their school to call them... Understanding that snowmachine owners tend to lean R... The fact that the Rs have developed a strategy that allows them to market nationally on a one on one basis... Things like that.

It's about their methods and strategy. Honestly, it has little to do with their message.

Think of it this way... It's like trying to discuss the cover 2 defense or the west coast offense in the NFL. The conversation becomes impossible when one side keeps injecting a specific team. The teams are irrelevant, I want to talk about the mechanics of the defense/offense itself.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The most interesting revelation about this thread is most people's inability to separate the players from the process. Even when asked to focus soley on the process, most of us can't let go of our feelings regarding the participants.

And IMO this is why nothing ever gets solved.
You start a thread calling the liars that are currently have running our country "The Greatest Marketing Machine Ever" and then expect rationale discussion about the process and not the participants?

I'm sorry, but I have this thing about being lied to and I can't seem to seperate one from the other.
Then you missed the point. Nowhere in the link or the OP was the Republican message mentioned nor was there any judgement made about the character of the party. It was entirely about the mechanics of how they get people out to vote for them and how they manage to keep beating the Ds when any rational person would say they have no chance.

Finding out who has alumni license plates and then getting people from their school to call them... Understanding that snowmachine owners tend to lean R... The fact that the Rs have developed a strategy that allows them to market nationally on a one on one basis... Things like that.

It's about their methods and strategy. Honestly, it has little to do with their message.

Think of it this way... It's like trying to discuss the cover 2 defense or the west coast offense in the NFL. The conversation becomes impossible when one side keeps injecting a specific team. The teams are irrelevant, I want to talk about the mechanics of the defense/offense itself.
OK, your refering to the actual mechanics of "getting out the vote" of the people most likley to vote in their favor. I can seperate that from their lies, but it is still hard for me to do because I think they are intertwined to a high degree. You can't get elected to dog catcher without promising something.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY