why aren't Democrats sweeping all elections?

[MongGrel]

*sigh* even after all these years.

Gerrymandering has screwed most districts, go figure.

On that note I'm moving off politics.

 

[OverVolt]

Poor people are also too busy watching Jersey Shore, so there is that.

 

[OverVolt]

Why aren't the democrats sweeping all elections?

Obviously, 1984 is late...

Uno

Haha the internet, it has so rotted everyone's brain. Oh my god, hahahaha.

That is not what politics and the English language is about, AT ALL.

This is the thesis

It[English] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

You can read it there. Please read it. Ironically, by rehashing a metaphor out of context, you are actually falling into foolish thought patterns.

Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.

Hahaha. That article improved my ability to write with clarity 100 fold. The best way to implement a metaphor is to come up with your own.

The internet has us doing the exact opposite, reposting other peoples ideas without any knowledge of where they came from and what they really mean.

This is really just mis-information galore.

 

[OverVolt]

This is the full conclusion for those who can't read

I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

Read the entire article to get the entire context though.

 

[OverVolt]

I feel like I have done my good deed for the day. No offense to unokitty the 'net mang has just been a whirlwind of misinformation, IMO.

I was trying to come up with a metaphor but really could not visualize what I'm trying to describe. People today lack a certain thoroughness to their thoughts, specifically the ones they post online. People come across an article having no prior knowledge on what is really being presented to them. Then if they agree with the sentiment in the article, they pass it along to their friends on social media. Irregardless of the actual content of the article. The purpose of the article/meme/media is not to inform you. The purpose of the article is to see if you pass it along to your friends. That is what generates views in online media. That is why online media will never be a proper medium to convey information, such as books and documentaries. The beauty of the internet, that anyone can host a website and post/blog/meme/write about anything and reach a vast audience, is also its downfall.

 

[row]

yep.



they've used up all of the cartoon characters and dead people. no more votes there.

looks like the courts are deciding that, yes, states. you do have the constitutional right to demand voter i.d. there goes the illegal vote.

of course it doesn't help matters much when you have a stumbling cluster fuck of a miserable failure as your preznit. :'(

did i mention berriecare.




looks like the progressive's election erection. has. gone. limp.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol

Regardless = irregardless



Normally I wouldn't care but your previous post lends a little irony to the mistake

 

[ivwshane]

yep.



they've used up all of the cartoon characters and dead people. no more votes there.

looks like the courts are deciding that, yes, states. you do have the constitutional right to demand voter i.d. there goes the illegal vote.

of course it doesn't help matters much when you have a stumbling cluster fuck of a miserable failure as your preznit. :'(

did i mention berriecare.




looks like the progressive's election erection. has. gone. limp.

Were you being sarcastic or stupid? It's hard to tell.

 

[OverVolt]

Lol

Regardless = irregardless



Normally I wouldn't care but your previous post lends a little irony to the mistake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

I had no idea :0)

 

[ivwshane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

I had no idea :0)

Now I've done my good deed!

 

[DominionSeraph]

theirs is a platform of wealth distribution in which their constituents are the beneficiaries of these entitlements.
and there are far fewer rich people than poor, so why aren't they winning in just about every district in the US?

Because Republicans offer government of White Christians, for White Christians, and by White Christians. This doesn't require much thinking.

Unrestrained capitalism results in massive wealth inequality which does not maximize overall economic growth. The Democratic platform is to even out the highs and lows so the engine of the economy doesn't get starved for fuel at any level. But you need a group that understands how the economy works in order to implement this regulation, and conservative tribalism has great difficulty impaneling a group it trusts. Conservatives don't believe in a system of objective facts, they only believe in the first feeling their brain shits out. Conservatives are small-minded and self-centered, so any regulation of themselves rubs them the wrong way, since nobody is going to entitle them like they self-entitle. In order to be the point source of all correct judgments -- the holder of the Perfect Perception -- they cannot place any other system of judgment over their own. Thus we have the conservative platform of small government over whites and large government to act out their will oppressing minorities, because both are things they can agree on.

Tribalism is instinctively understood. Democratic policies are more complicated and rest on premises that are a correction of the immature biases of tribal thinking. "Every group for themselves," may be a necessary starting point to ensure that the evolutionary hill-climbing algorithm can climb the first few steps, but with an ability to process facts and understand the universe, we have better means at our disposal than continually implementing the same destructive system of fitness. But this is beyond the NASCAR nation.

 

[HomerJS]

Because poor rednecks in West Va. have been convinced tax cuts for the rich is in their best interest.

 

[emperus]

I feel like I have done my good deed for the day. No offense to unokitty the 'net mang has just been a whirlwind of misinformation, IMO.

I was trying to come up with a metaphor but really could not visualize what I'm trying to describe. People today lack a certain thoroughness to their thoughts, specifically the ones they post online. People come across an article having no prior knowledge on what is really being presented to them. Then if they agree with the sentiment in the article, they pass it along to their friends on social media. Irregardless of the actual content of the article. The purpose of the article/meme/media is not to inform you. The purpose of the article is to see if you pass it along to your friends. That is what generates views in online media. That is why online media will never be a proper medium to convey information, such as books and documentaries. The beauty of the internet, that anyone can host a website and post/blog/meme/write about anything and reach a vast audience, is also its downfall.

Isn't that true with all forms of information. I can pick up a book that mis informs me and if I agree with the sentiment, pass it along, or have a convo with a friend that does the same. With all avenues of information, you get out of it what you choose to, No? If you want to be mindless, you will be mindless, no matter where you get your information.

 

[Greenman]

I can agree with your point on the atmospherics of the elections. But underneath that, I genuinely believe the Democrats have good policy backed by sound science. So, they run to actually do something. Republicans? Besides all the campaign slogans of the GOP, what message are they actually pushing? What would they do differently economy wise (more tax cuts), internationally (more war), prevent poverty (cut the minimum wage)?

I sat and watched some of CPAC and behind all the flowery language I couldn't figure out what the Republicans plank was. Not singular issues (gun rights and religious stuff) but a broad policy that average people could get behind and would make their lives better. The vast swath of Republicans genuinely vote against their interests because they are so misinformed or maybe just don't care.

Lastly, I watched Sarah Palin say, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke" and the crowd cheered and screamed. That is the lasting image of Republicans. Crazy!

I completely disagree, the dems are every bit as alarmist and controlling as the repubs. They just use a different boogie man. Both partys have a long and consistent record of failure, both party's pit different factions against each other.

 

[boomerang]

Because poor rednecks in West Va. have been convinced tax cuts for the rich is in their best interest.

"poor rednecks"? You sound like a bigot.

 

[BUnit1701]

Because Republicans offer government of White Christians, for White Christians, and by White Christians. This doesn't require much thinking.

Unrestrained capitalism results in massive wealth inequality which does not maximize overall economic growth. The Democratic platform is to even out the highs and lows so the engine of the economy doesn't get starved for fuel at any level. But you need a group that understands how the economy works in order to implement this regulation, and conservative tribalism has great difficulty impaneling a group it trusts. Conservatives don't believe in a system of objective facts, they only believe in the first feeling their brain shits out. Conservatives are small-minded and self-centered, so any regulation of themselves rubs them the wrong way, since nobody is going to entitle them like they self-entitle. In order to be the point source of all correct judgments -- the holder of the Perfect Perception -- they cannot place any other system of judgment over their own. Thus we have the conservative platform of small government over whites and large government to act out their will oppressing minorities, because both are things they can agree on.

Tribalism is instinctively understood. Democratic policies are more complicated and rest on premises that are a correction of the immature biases of tribal thinking. "Every group for themselves," may be a necessary starting point to ensure that the evolutionary hill-climbing algorithm can climb the first few steps, but with an ability to process facts and understand the universe, we have better means at our disposal than continually implementing the same destructive system of fitness. But this is beyond the NASCAR nation.

What ignorant rubbish. Conservatives stand for individual liberty, no matter the color of your skin. We believe that when a person achieves for themselves it strengthens us all. We believe that America is a shining beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

Democratic policies are built on premises that have no historical context. And the few that do have history behind them show them to be colossal failures.

 

[fskimospy]

What ignorant rubbish. Conservatives stand for individual liberty, no matter the color of your skin. We believe that when a person achieves for themselves it strengthens us all. We believe that America is a shining beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

Democratic policies are built on premises that have no historical context. And the few that do have history behind them show them to be colossal failures.

Conservatives stand for individual liberty.

Unless you're gay.

Or want an abortion.

Or don't want to work for company scrip.

Or want to form a union.

etc, etc, etc.

People are always for individual liberty so long as that individual liberty involves people doing what they want.

 

[BUnit1701]

Conservatives stand for individual liberty.

Unless you're gay.

Or want an abortion.

Or don't want to work for company scrip.

Or want to form a union.

etc, etc, etc.

People are always for individual liberty so long as that individual liberty involves people doing what they want.

Please, show me the Republican introduced bills outlawing homosexuality, abortion, and unions.

 

[fskimospy]

Please, show me the Republican introduced bills outlawing homosexuality, abortion, and unions.

Wait, is this a serious question?

Abortion:
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/03/22/state-2183/

(there are many more)

Homosexuality:

http://amarillo.com/stories/120402/tex_perrysays.shtml

Unions:

Well, they haven't tried to ban them, they've just tried to make it so that they are impossible to form.

 

[BUnit1701]

Wait, is this a serious question?

Abortion:
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/03/22/state-2183/

(there are many more)

Homosexuality:

http://amarillo.com/stories/120402/tex_perrysays.shtml

Unions:

Well, they haven't tried to ban them, they've just tried to make it so that they are impossible to form.

So, a law that says we only have abortions when the mothers life is in danger or rape IF the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v Wade is 'outlawing abortion'? I dont know what to say, apparently reading comprehension is one of your weak points.

 

[rudder]

Look at the electoral map of Tennessee. The urban counties including Nashville and Memphis overwhelmingly voted blue. The populations in these places tend to utilize government benefits a lot more than the rest of the state. And it is not all about income level. There are lot of rural counties in Tennessee where people don't have squat... but these people tend to be self reliant (growing food, strong communities, etc).

 

[fskimospy]

Look at the electoral map of Tennessee. The urban counties including Nashville and Memphis overwhelmingly voted blue. The populations in these places tend to utilize government benefits a lot more than the rest of the state. And it is not all about income level. There are lot of rural counties in Tennessee where people don't have squat... but these people tend to be self reliant (growing food, strong communities, etc).

This is actually the opposite of what is true. People in rural areas utilize government benefits at a higher rate than urban citizens.

Poverty rates as a whole are higher in rural areas than in urban ones:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rura...-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx#.UyxhGvldV8E

Additionally, those eligible for government benefits use them more often in rural areas than urban ones:

http://blog.metrotrends.org/2013/01/urban-rural-trends-snap-participation-on/

So we have a higher percentage of citizens who qualify for government programs in rural areas and they use those programs they qualify for at a higher rate. Who is self reliant now?

 

[DominionSeraph]

What ignorant rubbish. Conservatives stand for individual liberty, no matter the color of your skin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. They are for whatever definition gets them what they want.

Do they have the power to implement what they want on the federal level? Then it's, "Our liberty to pass what we want as the moral majority."
Is it unconstitutional or not enough support? "States' rights."
Not enough support for statewide? "Towns should be able to decide on their own."
Can't get it there? "Personal liberty." But only for them. The liberty to discriminate against anyone who isn't a white Christian is still granted across all levels.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe they don't like My Little Pony.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.