Political & Elections

If we're not going subtract points for whether or not the nutjobs carry a manual, I'd say it's game, set, and match to some of the people that helped elect the current minority leader, the VP, and the President.

Cultists don't carry manuals, they just watch Gore's movie and Michael Moore films until they've worked up a good head of idiocy.

Then they go out and vote.

 

edited to add: the clarification that I don't believe that everyone who votes for Pelosi & Co. has the money to see the movies - get-out-the-vote funds stretch only so far.

-- Edited by catahoula on Sunday 15th of May 2011 06:49:27 PM

john doe wrote:

---

All the republicans I've ever met are either birthers, bible thumping nutjobs or wall street tycoons doing "God's work".

---

 I suggest you get out more.

 

FFF wrote:

---

NBAchris, your knack for stereotyping with a complete lack of data is staggering.  But, if that's what it takes to make yourself feel superior, have at it. 

-- Edited by FFF on Saturday 14th of May 2011 07:59:11 PM

---

I looked back at some of your posts, and I just realized you tried to make a pro-creationist argument by claiming that people who lived before Darwin didn't believe in evolution. Therefore in today's era, creationists can compare themselves with Isaac Newton.

Just wow. That's like saying that the average 5-year old today is as smart — if not smarter — than Aristotle because the 5-year old would be able to use the internet while Aristotle would be blown out of his mind.

I'm not aware of biologists (non-environmental biologists) having a political bent one way or the other but I'm pretty sure that if the term "rigorous" applies to any one scientific field, it would apply to engineers. Overwhelmingly conservative, possibly even Tea Party leaning, whether white or brown, and completly antithetical to the social scientists who, while nice people, don't really come to mind when the phrase "rigorous" is trotted out.

"The anti-climate change people include the morons who think that climate change isn't occurring because it's snowing in the winter. I rest my case."

And the pro-climate change people include those who think that earthquakes are caused by climate change. Therefore, they all must be idiots, going by your formula.

nbachris2788 wrote:

---

FFF wrote:

---

"Animosity for science"??? What makes red states anti-science? Oh yeah, that evolution thing which is certainly at the core of all people voting for a Republican. Certainly evolution is at the epicenter of all things scientific and advances in electronics, computer science, medicine, avionics, etc. could never happen without a fundamental understanding and belief in evolution. One certainly has to question the science of Newton, Galileo, et al since it was done in the pre-enlightenment age of Darwinism.

What a complete balderdash stereotype!

-- Edited by FFF on Saturday 14th of May 2011 08:01:40 AM

---

Since evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, yeah, it kind of IS at the epicenter of many things scientific.

And it's not just evolution that anti-science right-wingers abhor. There's also climate change (well, environmental concern in general), stem cell research, and post-carbon fuel technology.

 

---

 Apparently you are willing to concede that all innovations of a non-biological basis could still be conceived of by someone who is not a Darwinist.  Since that constitutes the vast majority of what has made the US a top-tier economy, you have disproven your own point.  However, in the field of biology, perhaps you can point to breakthroughs that would not have been possible if the scientist did not ascribe to Darwin's theories of evolution of the species.

As far as global warming, I'd say that there are more anti-science views coming from the proponents of AGW than the camp that says the science is not yet settled.  We don't see calls for "trials against humanity" and charges of "treason" aimed against   scientists that don't buy into a particular view as we do from such proponents as James Hansen and RFK Jr.  I'd say such views are pretty anti-science, wouldn't you?

 

"All the republicans I've ever met are either birthers, bible thumping nutjobs or wall street tycoons doing "God's work"."
Some people only allow themselves to see that which proves them right. Otherwise, they'd have to admit that their belief system might need to be tweaked.

"All the republicans I've ever met are either birthers, bible thumping nutjobs or wall street tycoons doing "God's work"."

You must surround yourself with only a very limited amount of people. Funny, I know plenty of republicans, but no wall street tycoons. I doubt many people I know are birthers or bible thumpers, either.

It must really rock your world to be on this site and the old cc political site, with so few republicans that actually fit your vision of them. Could it be possible that there are those who affiliate with that party because they actually are fiscal conservatives, and believe that the government is corrupt, inefficient and often is far more costly than leaving work to the private sector?

You run in interesting circles, john.  I would think that some of those Wall Street tycoons worship one god above all the rest - money, and leave any kind of actual spirituality at the door.  Of course, that's another stereotype.  

What is the stereotype of all the Democrats that you know?  And how relevant is that stereotype to reality? 

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Saturday 14th of May 2011 09:27:08 AM

It is far easier to dismiss the other side if you believe they are a caricature.  

Very little ever gets accomplished when both political parties or their followers believe this. 

I haven't yet met a GOP member who dismissed evolution or was anti-science.  Some of my GOP buddies are *gasp*:  scientists.  Certainly the stereotype does exist.  

There are plenty of stereotypes to go around - for all political parties.  

I don't think throwing around stereotypes actually advances anyone's argument.  

Abyss wrote:

---

Relative to certain sub-sections of our immigrant population - absolutely.

One could take all the states that voted for Bush in 2000 (ie: Jesusland) and make a first world country out of it. Mexico is not a first world country. I posit that it will never be a first world country.

And if you think that only Tea Partiers are the only people who are anti-low skill immigration you are sorely mistaken.

 

---

"Relative"? So in absolute terms, that'll be a no.

If you take "Jesusland" and grant them independence, they would rapidly lose the first world status that their more educated and enlightened citizens have worked for. Animosity against science is usually a big obstacle towards economic prosperity.

 

Abyss wrote:

---

nbachris2788 wrote:

---

This is all about power, isn't it? The fading and greying racist crowd (and those who ennoble them) want their utterly unreasonable demands met as a display of their still-high status in a rapidly-changing America.

---

 Personally, I can't wait til American turns into Mexico 2.0. It's pretty clear that Mexico is a world leader in knowledge generation. I mean, a culture as great as Mexico has spawned hundreds of world class companies like Google, MS, Facebook, Boeing, Ford, IBM, etc. They also have a tremendously high patent production rate that rivals all the other elite economies of the world (Japan/South Korea/US/Europe). Furthermore, it's generally a peaceful place with a very low homicide rate (I doubt any of them even know what drugs are as well). I don't want to continue lavishing praise upon a country that is already so blessed but we could also mention their very low illegitimacy rate. In general, they have also been at the forefront of major human achievements like going to the Moon (and back), mastering the atom, and creating the Internet.

I mean, with all these achievements to back em up, why don't we just deport those greying, worthless, racist European descended Americans and continue with a full blown population replacement program from Mexico? America truly hasn't reached the pinnacle of its achievements yet.

---

 

So the Tea Party demographic (old, white, religious, socially conservative) is what's fuelling America's innovation?

 

busdriver11 wrote:

---

"Why have questions like these been so tenaciously leveled against this candidate/President? What other man in his position has ever been questioned as to his citizenship?"

So I know that the rush to these answers are going to be, "They're against him because a black man, that's the reason!" As if President Bush wasn't questioned about so many trivial and unfair issues, even his legitimacy as far as getting enough votes, after the Florida recount was done in many different ways, it never stopped.

But in reality, there are some differences in this president that bring notice to issues that most black men would not have to deal with. He should have answered to this specific issue a long time ago, and I suspect most of his supporters know this, though they don't want to admit it. You can give all the defenses and reasons in the world, but he let this grow, and he should have dealt with it.

His father was a KENYAN. How many modern day presidents had a parent who was not a US citizen? How many presidents had a father and step father who were Muslim? How many spent much of their childhood in a non-Western country such as Indonesia? When you have a middle name like Hussein, you need to clear up ANY QUESTION about your citizenship immediately. I think it was an arrogant, stupid error on the Presidents part to let this continue. Now he may have met a goal in allowing people to act as fools over this matter, but I don't think this works out well for him either.

---

 

There actually were legitimate quesitons about the fairness of Bush's election. False equivalency.

Sure, Obama's biography was a bit different than most previous presidents. If anybody had questions about his citizenship, they could go see his birth certificate! You know, the one that the Republican government of Hawaii — and every other credible person — said was good.

This is all about power, isn't it? The fading and greying racist crowd (and those who ennoble them) want their utterly unreasonable demands met as a display of their still-high status in a rapidly-changing America.

I would tell you that polls about anything are mostly meaningless.  I just answered a poll with someone for a local campaign and was in such a rush to get off the phone and so annoyed by being called for the 3rd time today by different pollsters, that my answers probably weren't completely accurate.  And again, I honestly didn't care.  If I was feeling in a feisty mood, I may have answered with a snarky response and been insincere about it.

Did I tell you I hate polls?  

There is also the element that people who answer telephone polls about elections aren't always the ones that actually vote.  It's simply a cross section of people, which may or may not be accurate.  

SamuraiLandshark wrote:

---

Trump was in the news a couple of weeks ago.  I haven't heard anything, since.  Or really cared.  

Nobody I know who is a GOP supporter ever thought he was a legit candidate.  I also don't think he is overshadowing anyone at this point.  It's an early game, and I doubt Trump was ever serious about mounting a campaign.   

---

I would agree with you for the most part, except that Trump was winning some polls about GOP frontrunners. Granted, it's useless this early in the race to take stock of such polls, but he wasn't just some fringe lunatic. At least in less sane parts of America.

pima wrote:

---

nba,

Woodwork is correct nobody ever thought that Hillary would have lost the nom to Obama. She had the pedigree and the bank account to boot.

I do not for one second believe that Trump will run. He has too much baggage and not enough money.

However, I will say this, Trump is very media savvy (sound familiar?).

He is hitting chords with voters.

You are young. I am not positive, but I am willing to bet the following:

1. You don't own a home under water
2. You don't have kids in college who can't find a job.
~~~Kids that you just saved for decades to attend college.
~~~Saved, but not enough and they have loans even with the 6 figures you paid
~~~Kids who can't get a job with a college degree, debt and the 6 figures you paid.
3. You aren't buying groceries for a family.
~~~ Milk in my area has jumped a buck. Butter is up 50 cents. Try feeding a family without milk or butter.
4. Gas prices impact us stupid parents.
~~~ We have car payments and because we were paying to put our kids through college we couldn't afford to buy the newest fuel efficient car without taking a hit monetarily.


Obama was great in 08 for rallying the youth. The youth 4 yrs later that are graduating from college who can't find a job. The youth who have watched over the past 4 yrs their parents homes deflate in equity while they lost a job. They also now understand that their parents had to sell their mutual funds, including 401s just to pay the bills.

The HOPE they believed in 08, no longer exists.

Us old folks get the way the system works. Turning out the vote is the way. People who voted for him 08 are not there. If they don't show up in 12, can you say that if 12 was 08 McCain wouldn't be President.

Everything I stated earlier also goes for Independents.

Voting is like golf. Fair weather everyone comes out, rain, heat, cold only the real players will be there. Independents and youth are fair weather. I think 12 will not be fair weather.

That being stated. I do believe he will win. I only believe that because I believe the R's have decided that 16 is their battle ground and they are starting that grooming process. Just can't say if it is Rubio, Cantor or someone else.

---

 

None of this establishes support for Trump as a worthy challenger to Obama. Nothing that Trump has said has been remotely intelligent or strikingly new (in the case of some of the less crazy things he's said), and it is detrimental to the right-wing cause because there are some conservatives who have good things to say. But now, they're being overshadowed by a C-list celebrity who talks about Birtherism and Transcripterism.

Trump's slogan pretty much amounts to "I'm rich. Vote for me!" This is not helping the Republican re-branding.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Monday 9th of May 2011 08:04:43 PM

nba,

Woodwork is correct nobody ever thought that Hillary would have lost the nom to Obama. She had the pedigree and the bank account to boot.

I do not for one second believe that Trump will run. He has too much baggage and not enough money.

However, I will say this, Trump is very media savvy (sound familiar?).

He is hitting chords with voters.

You are young. I am not positive, but I am willing to bet the following:

1. You don't own a home under water
2. You don't have kids in college who can't find a job.
~~~Kids that you just saved for decades to attend college.
~~~Saved, but not enough and they have loans even with the 6 figures you paid
~~~Kids who can't get a job with a college degree, debt and the 6 figures you paid.
3. You aren't buying groceries for a family.
~~~ Milk in my area has jumped a buck. Butter is up 50 cents. Try feeding a family without milk or butter.
4. Gas prices impact us stupid parents.
~~~ We have car payments and because we were paying to put our kids through college we couldn't afford to buy the newest fuel efficient car without taking a hit monetarily.


Obama was great in 08 for rallying the youth. The youth 4 yrs later that are graduating from college who can't find a job. The youth who have watched over the past 4 yrs their parents homes deflate in equity while they lost a job. They also now understand that their parents had to sell their mutual funds, including 401s just to pay the bills.

The HOPE they believed in 08, no longer exists.

Us old folks get the way the system works. Turning out the vote is the way. People who voted for him 08 are not there. If they don't show up in 12, can you say that if 12 was 08 McCain wouldn't be President.

Everything I stated earlier also goes for Independents.

Voting is like golf. Fair weather everyone comes out, rain, heat, cold only the real players will be there. Independents and youth are fair weather. I think 12 will not be fair weather.

That being stated. I do believe he will win. I only believe that because I believe the R's have decided that 16 is their battle ground and they are starting that grooming process. Just can't say if it is Rubio, Cantor or someone else.

Is there anybody who actually — with a straight face — sees Trump vs. Obama as some kind of legitimate political debate?

Trump's misguided political cameo will go down in history mainly for his delicious roasting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, or for his bit role as the toupeed gadfly that sort of annoyed Obama while the POTUS was busy killing Osama.

Not sure why you needed to mispell deficit on purpose.  It's not exactly one of those words that sounds different based on who says it.  

One thing that is different now, nba is the simple fact that things are so much worse economically now.  

If you were to ask me if I was worried about my retirement funds and stocks in summer of 2008, I would have said "Why?"  Feel free to call it ignorance or whatever you will, but things were plugging along pretty well for my family at that point. The stock market went up, and it went down. Nothing new under the sun at that point. When things don't affect you directly, sometimes it's easy to ignore a looming problem. 

I have always been worried about our country's ability to spend itself into oblivion, but it was never the kind of worry that made me take a big gulp and keep me up at night and realize that we were all screwed. 

I am not sure how you can attribute the worry over the economy due to racism.  If McCain had been elected President, nothing different would have happened with our economy in the short term. We would still be facing a problem with our debt ceiling.  It's just a reality. Our country went through a drastic change just a few years ago.  It's a different US and a different global economy, today.

The fringe elements of all parties are whack jobs.  We all know this. I don't see how you can link anyone suddenly worried with the economy/deficit in the racist category if they suddenly see that our country if facing a dire future if we don't get a handle on spending.  It should worry everyone.  I am certain that our President is also worried about this problem and it's probably keeping him up nights, too. 

I also believe that Obama probably wasn't as concerned about the deficit when he was in the Senate.  Things change. It's a different world.  

Poet, that was all very well said. Below is my response.

a concoction of Birther rhetoric, demands to "see his transcripts", accusations that he approves of black kids beating up white kids on school buses, that his motivation to bring about healthcare reform is merely a means of providing "reparations" for slavery, that he "hates white people", etc. That's just racist fear mongering. Though I agree with you that these things extend from nit-picky to absurd, I do not necessarily think that those that wanted to see a birth certificate/transcripts etc were racists (though normally not the kind of people I'd enjoy having a ****tail with) but I would agree that your run-of-the-mill racists would be cheered and emboldened by such personal and political attacks (making the first black president somehow alien), and I am sure they were --and this, I think, is the root of the racist accusations: that racists were given satisfaction with this peculiar obsession of many from the Tea-party end of the spectrum. That bothered me a lot, as well.

In analogy, and at a different level, I think this is why so many conservatives found President Obama's critiques of America, while on foreign soil, offensive (or any other liberal, from Hollywood to Washington); not because they believe Barack Obama "hates" America or thinks American's need international chastising, but because those that do hate America (and there are more out there than not) were given satisfaction by his public and foreign ruminations on America's sins.

As for Thomas being for States Rights, well, it would be very peculiar to be a political or legal conservative and be against states' rights in the modern era. At least not since FDR. Clarence Thomas would be no exception to this. If there is another black conservative nominated to the court he will necessarily be cut from a similar cloth and for States rights; it would be like expecting a Christian to pray facing Mecca. Liberals tend to like big-umbrella government, far and wide....often even extending such a preference to the dictates of the United Nations and international law over their own local governments positions. It is a philosophical difference.

To disagree with Thomas' politics, as the NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, Biden, Kennedy et al did, was one thing; but to turn the televised senate hearings into a shameful and typical attack on a black intellectual hitting the big time, involving genitalia, pubic hairs, porn, fornication and sexual innuendo was disgusting, typical and racist. Otoh, I completely understand why you would not like Thomas, based both on his political and cultural views and opinions, as you described above. Makes sense.

I would be just as disgusted by a similar attack on President Obama if one were to emerge...and if it did, everyone here would condemn it as blatantly racist. If it is racist, it is always racist...no matter the party or politics of the person being abused. And if such an attack was conducted against Barack Obama by the MSM and leading Republican Senators over the air-waves it might even be called a high-tech lynching.

I didn't, but that doesn't mean that you have to approve or that it would matter if you did.

Poet, please don't be offended, but the very idea that Thomas should hold specific political views due to his skin color is by any definition racist: expecting someone to behave a certain way due to their race. I have some conservative friends that are black and they would be far more offended by your description of Thomas (applied to them) than they would be if some redneck called them the "N" word...or even if it were a senate committee member hurling the racial epithets, as in the case of Thomas. What would offend you more?

 

As to the totems: the attack was sexual, involving low and sorted innuendo. His white wife (she's very popular amongst Tea-Party types...you know, the "racists" who despise things like intra-racial marriage?) sat in the gallery and had to endure this (perhaps he lost some support from the dogmatic end of the Black community for having married a white woman --intra-racial is bad in this brave new multi-racial world). Even more, as I say above, there is nothing more racists or hurtful than the repetitious accusation that any black is an Uncle Tom and while calling him that (a rear-guard attack) attacking him in the common way that profesional, educated and ambitious blacks have been attacked for years: low moral fiber, sexual predators, uncivilized, vulgar and with uncontrollable desires. All of which were used to "lynch" Clarence Thomas. I cannot think of a modern day political figure that endured anywhere near the public humiliation and spectacle that Thomas endured, and to no reasonable end. And if you want to talk about a guy coming from nothing and becoming something, I cannot think of a more impressive journey than Thomas's struggle and rise from the very bottom to the top.

 

I am against what is often refered to as Obama-care (having just gone through a lot of medical issues I speak from my own experience, I'm pretty sure that had "Obama-care" been in full effect I would be dead). I don't like the idea of having an academic as president (retrospectively, I feel the same about Woodrow Wilson) --too much abstract idealism, I am uncomfortable with the mea culpas that seem to be an interagal part of the administrations foriegn relations; I think the monetary policies of the last 2 years have stagnated economic growth not spurred it. On the other hand, I am impressed by Barack Obama and his successful ambition. Great looking family. Articulate. Educated. American. Religious Christian with a great smile. Though I am sure I MUST be a racist in the eyes of a whole lot of people because I oppose most of his initiatives and policies. It's a catch-all. And I will rarely waste time trying to defend myself against charges of racism or wife-beating.

I've never even understood the so-called birther argument, anyway.  Obama's mother was a US citizen.  Therefore, he is a US citizen.

Is somebody trying to say that if someone whose parents were US citizens was born in Canada they couldn't be president? 

I mean, what difference does it make where you are born if your mom was born here? 

I'm not talking about the president.  Just, in general.  Is there even any "real" law about this? 

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 2nd of May 2011 07:00:10 AM

Trump's comments about Saudi Oil did nothing but prove his ignorance on the subject.