Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 6, 2008.
"This deal is getting worse all the time."
The inmates really are running the asylum here.
It really ticks me off when I hear about the prejudice from the media, that goes down during primary to influence the outcome. Just today I was reading an article how one of the people moderating a debate during (primary/election) season admit they had an earpeice with a voice saying who to ask and who not to ask. They admitted the blatant manufactured influence, this coming from the GOP side. That is going to be hard to overcome, but young people when they reach critical mass and begin to bypass the MSM, then it will change. Everybody and their dog new Mitt had no chance against Obama. And that is because they picked a guy that zero chance of pulling ANY democratic voters from 2008.
Next round they need somebody that can pull them in, not sure Rand Paul can, so many variables.
What a great week for the GOP. We have...
Lindsey Graham & Co. who want the Boston bomber to be tried as an enemy combatant and stripped of his Constitutional rights, despite being a citizen.
Ted Cruz, who opposed Hurricane Sandy relief aid, but advocated & voted for federal aid for the West, Texas explosion.
I think Peter King even went so far as to say "Send the kid to Gitmo".
Greg Ball (NY State Senator) is calling for him to be tortured. So there's that.
If we ignore the GOP, maybe they'll go away?
hey im a state senator. i want someone tortured. vote for me, white people
State senators are so cute. It's like seeing a little kid pretending to be a cop.
A PA State Rep north of Pittsburgh appeared at an "open carry" rally last week that featured convicted felons who were manufacturing automatic weapons for a militia. But don't worry - the rally featured a United Nations flag that you were to wipe your feet on and they burned it at the end.
They keep getting more and more moderate. Not sure how they won't win in 2014/2016 with these kinds of people.
Don't worry, they've got a strategy: YOU SAID THE WRONG THING ABOUT BENGHAZI BLAAAARGGGG
All this time, and my instinctive thought upon reading the thread title is the same as ever: "There isn't one."
Keep in mind that this is a Senate tagged thread, and should be substantive discussion on the given topic
What's so utterly shocking is how some people here act like they're Alex, the character from A Clockwork Orange, after he's gone through his "pacification treatment," in that I think they would literally collapse and retch if they viewed anything beyond party lines. I think the isolated news stories that just happen to focus on a single politician are quaint, if not strange, especially when they're made to be larger than they are. Hey, let's follow suit, just with the opposite focus. Let's start with a democratic poll worker who admitted that she used her position to vote multiple times for President, and has since been criminally charged for it:
Time for us to all laugh and pretend that this campaign worker represents all democrat campaign workers, and the only reason the democrats won the 2012 election is because they all used voter fraud...It's fun and so single minded! Hey, here's another story in today's paper regarding Penny Pritzker, who is the President's potential pick for Commerce Secretary, and how she donated gobs of cash to his various re-election funds, including $500,000 for his recent inauguration. Sounds like pay for play, eh:
Again, let's all laugh and point and project how the only way democrats can get appointed is to buy the seats they want...It's wacky.
Of course, without any supporting discussion, these stories don't represent anything more than they are...That is, assuming there is value in continually just providing such stories that do nothing but ding the other "side" without anything else. Beyond that, political parties are just a reflection of what is happening in the country. It never ceases to amaze me how anyone could have the mindset of "I'm good with anything as long as it comes from the democrats," especially if that statement includes a belief that any kind of opposition is simply going to fade away.
Moving on to actual discussion- Realistically, for example, in the next midterm elections, 6 democratic Senators have already announced that they are not going to seek re-election. 3 of those are projected to turn (R), factoring in how far out the election is. If 3 of those six do turn (R), then the balance of the Senate will be 50-48, with 2 independents. If 4 of those seats go (R), then the Senate will be 49-49, with the same 2 independents, all with the House remaining (R). That's how political parties and opposition parties continue to remain viable. It's not that one party is going to disappear while the other assumes complete dominance, (which I hope would never happen with either party.) It's how either reflect the views of who is voting for them.
Not that I disagree with these anecdotal examples of the GOP (although I find them hilarious - and widespread) but the above stories highlighting the absurdity of the GOP were elected officials and, in some cases, U.S. Senators. You replied with a ... volunteer poll worker?
The Pritzer story is old news. Not that I condone it, but it's far from shocking or reflective of the Democratic Party as a whole. Bush II appointed his campaign Chair as his first Commerce Secretary and Clinton appointed the then-DNC Chair to fill the role... and the list goes on.
hmmm all the prior stories on this page are of elected officials reflecting the insane and inhuman ideology their party stands for. your post, mr 44, only manages to gather tales of unelected individuals doing dumb things, independent of ideology. can you see how one set of anecdotes might seem more generalizable than the other?
Just-as-badism rears its ugly head.
But you guys are precisely proving my point, which was why I chose those stories in the first place.
Shinjo, I don't know how you can rationally say something like "The Pritzer story is old news. Not that I condone it, but it's far from shocking or reflective of the Democratic Party as a whole.." and then turn around and do nothing but provide isolated stories about individuals who happen to have an (R) after there name while pretending each one is supposed to represent every aspect of the other party. It's blindly partisan, if not outright hypocritical. Rationally, wouldn't the easy reply for your most recent story be a simple... "Not that I condone it, but it's far from shocking or reflective of the Republican Party as a whole?" Shouldn't each story and the details which surround them stand on their own? Why do you justify away the Pritzker story as not representative of her entire party? Because she is only one person with her own views and actions? Again though, let's compare the assumptions contained in two direct quotes from two of your posts:
"Not that I condone it, but it's far from shocking or reflective of the Democratic Party as a whole."
"They keep getting more and more moderate. Not sure how they won't win in 2014/2016 with these kinds of people."
Interesting. That's about all there is left to say.
Rogue, your post is just an attempt at justification, which while I didn't know who, I predicted someone would do. You have to know that rationally, the only reason why you label one as being "insane and inhuman," is because you're excusing the other based on your perception. Yeah, anyone could start a virtual parade of specific stories about any number of politicians from the (D) party with the only purpose of making the entire "side" look bad while providing no other content or commentary. But why? It would also be meaningless. See, you guys are still missing the point. I don't think you will ever understand because you seem to look at everything through an "us vs them" mentality. I'm not excusing anyone just because of their political party, I'm saying that each should probably be examined for what they are, instead of just posting story after story without comment, and then sitting back and gufawing about how your team is so much better than the other, for whatever that is supposed to mean.
And then we have KW, who at irregular and random times will just pop and post no other statement except a blanket "no matter what it is, as long as a democratic party politician does it, it will be fine," or predict that "this will be the year that the republican party will become extinct in the US," which he has done every year for the past 8 years and so often that it's become a quaint tradition.
What mentality would you recommend?
How about a mentality that recognizes differences and disagreements and which celebrates that all human beings are unique?
It's a lot better than endless posts which do nothing but purport that one side supposedly has a lock over the other without a crumb of additional acknowledgement or analysis.
The point of politics (unless you are a moron) is to overcome the people who disagree with you, otherwise I can't see you being credited with any sort of moral seriousness in your views.
Politics is not a forum for honest people with legitimate disagreements to get together and hash things out - it is warfare by other means. Laughing at the Republicans may come off as ideologically lazy, but when you have people like Bobby Jindal chiding his own side for being the "stupid party", you see that there is an effective and exploitable narrative there.
I am not interested in coddling right wingers, and furthermore I think that the constant movement towards the middle which soi-dissant independents paint as open-mindedness is actually hidden sympathy for irrationalist elements within the conservative platform.
Correction. The point of politics is to overcome those people who disagree with you by using facts and coming up with a solution that makes sense. (while the last part might be a stretch) It's no different that what an official debate tournament is scored on. You don't win a debate by simply saying "I think I'm right" over and over.
In this forum, for a while now, Shinjo has done nothing but post a link which outlines some story which he says makes entire GOP look crazy. But he doesn't examine the story. He doesn't explore the context. He doesn't even add in a comment on the story itself which is any more detailed than a quick "look at how much this party sucks.." It's like he expects that its a goal in itself. Except the first time any kind of story is supplied which details a "crazy" act by someone who happens to be a democrat, he easily says "oh, I might not agree, with that maybe...But one story doesn't apply to everyone within the party...You have to look at the specifics..."
Yes, exactly. That's what I'm saying.
Utter nonsense. The point of politics in a democracy is to get people to vote for your party, and God knows how little to do with "facts" and/or "solutions that make sense" that has.
I think you are drastically underestimating the effect that Republican populist-Christian emotionalism and Democratic technocratic and cultural elitism plays in their respective party's appeal.
But oftentimes, it is merely that they look crazy from a certain point of view. A disturbingly high number of people seem to feel that pointing out instances in which the Republicans too blatantly espouse the core of their conservative ideology counts as "cheating" by Democrats.
Utter nonsense. The point of politics in a democracy is to get people to vote for your party, and God knows how little to do with "facts" and/or "solutions that make sense."
I don't agree, and it shouldn't be the goal.
We have parties and not (exclusively) a technocratic bureaucracy for a reason.
I highlighted sitting U.S. Senators - and local elected officials - engaging in extremist and/or hypocritical behavior. Calling for a U.S. citizen to be tortured and treated as an enemy combatant. Actively opposed to 'government spending' in Hurricane Sandy relief, but pleading for federal aid for your own state. Holding a rally with convicted felons that manufactured militia weapons and publicly burning the U.N. flag.
I "justify away" the Pritzer story because it's meaningless and I provided my rationale for that. Off the top of my head, the past two Presidents appointed a political friend / donor to the Commerce Secretary position and I'm sure the trend continues down the line.
I do think the Republican examples are reflective of the GOP as a whole, as there are many, many examples of this kind of extremism in the party and in the base.
There isn't any comparable behavior in the Democratic Party. If you can prove me wrong, then go for it 44. I'd love to see what examples you come up with. I don't, however, see Democratic Senators or local elected officials repeatedly engaging in radical behavior in the cases above.