Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[IronyOwl]

An interesting piece on Millennial politics.

Whoa. Learned more than I expected to today.

[FearfulJesuit]

I disagree with a few of the article's conclusions, mainly because I think it's drawing its conclusions too soon. Lord knows I like Warren, but even if she can win the 2016 Democratic primary, she'll only win the presidential election if the Republicans go full retard and nominate someone like Rick Santorum. Maybe in 2024, if the Republicans stay locked in their downward spiral. I think the writer is definitely on to something, but we'll be living in Reagan's shadow for longer than he (or I) would like.

If I may play the part of the amoral schemer here, absolutely one of the best things that could possibly happen for this New Left to be catapulted into power is for the Republicans to squeak out a narrow victory in the White House, Senate, AND House in 2016, then proceed to try and convert the country into a Randian utopia. I think one of the reasons Democrats don't have a larger margin in Washington is that much of their rhetoric is focused on things like gay rights which, while important, also encourage knee-jerk reactions from older voters, especially since- having grown up in an era where all gays were underground and the ones that weren't were only ever thought of as degenerate pseudo-pedophiles- it's easy for them to think "Well, that doesn't apply to me! They're just legislating immorality!" It's harder to say that if what's being pushed is a higher minimum wage. I'm loath to say it, but the Democrats could probably win elections more often if they started emphasizing, say, labor laws more than gay rights. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2050 the Democrats were the Jesus party, not the Republicans; if a large part of your base is Latin American Catholics and black Pentacostalists, sooner or later you'll start talking about camels in needles and that sort of thing.

(Oh, bleh, that was disorganized as hell...I had a Point here, but it got lost in the rambling.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

if the Republicans go full retard and nominate someone like Rick Santorum.

Because the Republicans have never gone full retard in any other situation.

[FearfulJesuit]

What I'm saying is that somebody who is sane and yet terribly, terribly wrong, like Ryan or Rubio, is much more dangerous than someone like Santorum.

I mean, I really wouldn't be surprised if a gods, guns and gays culture warrior DID win the 2016 GOP primary. Santorum almost did in 2012, and was stymied only by Texas's primary date being rescheduled away from Super Tuesday and the fact that he was up against a candidate who had mountains and mountains more cash and had been perfecting the art of running for president for the previous six years. He will not have that handicap that time. But the primaries will be long and bitter, and it won't be over until the fat lady sings.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

sane

Rubio

Err....

I mean, I really wouldn't be surprised if a gods, guns and gays culture warrior DID win the 2016 GOP primary. Santorum almost did in 2012, and was stymied only by Texas's primary date being rescheduled away from Super Tuesday and the fact that he was up against a candidate who had mountains and mountains more cash and had been perfecting the art of running for president for the previous six years. He will not have that handicap that time. But the primaries will be long and bitter, and it won't be over until the fat lady sings.

I don't think we'll have that much luck foreseeing 2016 until 2014 is passed.

[FearfulJesuit]

People can be sane and yet incredibly wrong. Someone like Rubio or even Rand Paul is, at least partly, trying to walk a fine line between sanity and protecting himself from an attack by the hordes of madmen who vote in the primaries. I don't like their positions, certainly, and because of their sanity I'd say they're possibly more dangerous than someone like Bachmann, but several of them are likeable and even civil. (Paul Ryan, I think, is such a type. He's very wrong, but he's quite bright, and he's actually quite likeable as a person once you get away from his budget and his insane position on abortion. If I were to have lunch with a member of the GOP, Ryan would actually be fairly high on my list.)

It's nice to think, and indeed I'd like to believe, that you can never divorce the man's voting record from the man. But that's not entirely true. There's an anecdote that when President Ford was a congressman, if he saw a homeless person during his walk to the Capital, he would give him his lunch without thinking twice, and then proceed to vote against school lunch subsidies for schoolkids, without ever seeing the contradiction. Is he a hypocrite? Well, maybe. But I think there's something deeper here about human nature: if presented with a problem that is near to us, and a problem that is far away or feels far away, we make them as if we were two different people. Currently, I live in Oklahoma, one of the reddest, most reactionary, Bill O'Reilly-watching states in the country. And the people who live here are hospitable and kind in a way that I've just never seen en masse up north. It's not really an active sin; it's a glitch (maybe) in the wiring of human psyches.

As for 2014: it seems likely that the Republicans are going to keep the House (and quite possibly take the Senate) due to the demographics of midterm elections (and, in the Senate's case, races in several reddish states with moderate Democratic incumbents), which will- quite wrongly- send the message that contrarian batshittery works. But, as you say, it remains to be seen.

[bulborbish]

Eh, thought I should put this here, seeing as it has some relevance to politics (at least at the state level)

Colorado State Senators John Morse and Angela Giron were removed from office for their support of a gun control bill. The recall effort mainly being funded by the NRA, and the defense (of Morse at least) being paid for by various groups that support gun control.

[ggamer]

Perhaps it's not to late to revoke my social contract with America and move to a nicer place.

Maybe Sweden? Neh, the majority there is too the left, I feel as though I wouldn't have much voice as a minority (isn't that weird to think about)

What about Spain or Italy? Well, the frequent riots and destabilizing economy sure don't seem like they'd make a good market for jobs.

What about Germany? Actually, my friend told me that organized crime is a pretty big issue there, so i'd rather not.

France? I don't think I'd like to be in a place where Muslim minorities are prosecuted on a daily basis.

Perhaps i'll just go live in Norway or Japan. Yeah, Japan sounds pretty good. Japan or South Ko- wait, not them, their government is shady as all get out.

Guys, I don't like the world. It's shitty and bad, and makes me feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[lemon10]

An interesting piece on Millennial politics.

Wow, that was a real interesting read. The main thing that I got from that though was that we will probably have to wait a minimum of +10 years to get leaders that truly agree with my values without just giving lipservice to them or supporting them because they are popular.
E: Barring a few strong politicians that is, I think it will take quite a while for the rank and file members to truly change to reflect the demographic shifts, especially with the current power of corporations.

It's nice to think, and indeed I'd like to believe, that you can never divorce the man's voting record from the man. But that's not entirely true. There's an anecdote that when President Ford was a congressman, if he saw a homeless person during his walk to the Capital, he would give him his lunch without thinking twice, and then proceed to vote against school lunch subsidies for schoolkids, without ever seeing the contradiction. Is he a hypocrite? Well, maybe. But I think there's something deeper here about human nature: if presented with a problem that is near to us, and a problem that is far away or feels far away, we make them as if we were two different people. Currently, I live in Oklahoma, one of the reddest, most reactionary, Bill O'Reilly-watching states in the country. And the people who live here are hospitable and kind in a way that I've just never seen en masse up north. It's not really an active sin; it's a glitch (maybe) in the wiring of human psyches.

The internet calls that the monkeysphere.

[Ross Vernal]

"Reaganized liberalism" makes about as much sense as "Dehydrated water", "Fat-free lard", and/or "God-fearing atheist." Fascism is fascism is fascism. It is incompatible with liberalism. Now, if you were to call it neoliberalism, that I would agree with.

The argument between the children of Reagan and the children of Clinton is fierce, but ideologically, it tilts toward the right.

An argument between far-right and right-center is right-tilted? No shit.

Looking at the Clinton versus Warren thing... ugh. I would sooner gnaw off my arm than vote for Clinton and Warren's pounding the war-drums is killing her credibility for me.

[Pnx]

Perhaps it's not to late to revoke my social contract with America and move to a nicer place.

Maybe Sweden? Neh, the majority there is too the left, I feel as though I wouldn't have much voice as a minority (isn't that weird to think about)

What about Spain or Italy? Well, the frequent riots and destabilizing economy sure don't seem like they'd make a good market for jobs.

What about Germany? Actually, my friend told me that organized crime is a pretty big issue there, so i'd rather not.

France? I don't think I'd like to be in a place where Muslim minorities are prosecuted on a daily basis.

Perhaps i'll just go live in Norway or Japan. Yeah, Japan sounds pretty good. Japan or South Ko- wait, not them, their government is shady as all get out.

Guys, I don't like the world. It's shitty and bad, and makes me feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Or you can live in good ol' America, where almost all of those things are an issue and more! :p

[Dutchling]

I have never heard of organized crime being an big issue in Germany o.O

[Askot Bokbondeler]

so you never heard of the jaywalking gang of oberlungwitz?

[Leafsnail]

You'd reject Germany on the basis of organized crime but not Japan?

[GreatJustice]

It's nice to think, and indeed I'd like to believe, that you can never divorce the man's voting record from the man. But that's not entirely true. There's an anecdote that when President Ford was a congressman, if he saw a homeless person during his walk to the Capital, he would give him his lunch without thinking twice, and then proceed to vote against school lunch subsidies for schoolkids, without ever seeing the contradiction. Is he a hypocrite? Well, maybe. But I think there's something deeper here about human nature: if presented with a problem that is near to us, and a problem that is far away or feels far away, we make them as if we were two different people. Currently, I live in Oklahoma, one of the reddest, most reactionary, Bill O'Reilly-watching states in the country. And the people who live here are hospitable and kind in a way that I've just never seen en masse up north. It's not really an active sin; it's a glitch (maybe) in the wiring of human psyches.

I'd say that's just a difference in the way people view morality. I can't speak for conservatives, but libertarians would argue that there is a very huge difference between doing something virtuous, and forcing other people to be virtuous through legislation, for a very long list of reasons. It can be at least partially summarized by that old quote from Penn Jillette, though;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

People still sometimes talk past each other, though. When a libertarian and a progressive talk about "justice", they mean two very, very different things depending on the context.

EDIT: Oh, and on the "Millennial Politics" article, I'd say it's partially right, but not entirely. Polls of Millennials have been all over the place, partially because pollsters aren't quite so good at polling cell phones, etc when many don't even bother with landlines. I'd say conservatism as it exists presently is pretty much doomed in the long run, but even if it wasn't, the fact of the matter is that when you pit something with a long term "goal" like progressivism against something that stands for "keeping things as they stand" like conservatism, the conservatives will always lose in the long run because the goalposts keep shifting for them. A conservative in the 1950s would oppose many of the welfare programs that a modern conservative (even a "crazed reactionary" one) would stand behind as being a "long established tradition". Even when the conservatives "win", as in the 1980s, they can't really scale back very much and generally aren't willing to anyway. Ronald Reagan did a lot of hooting and hollering about how he was cutting spending and taxes, but Jimmy Carter arguably did more than he did in some ways. If all the progressives have to worry about is conservatives, then they still succeed even if the conservatives win 3/4 elections and by 2050 the conservatives will be defending America's comprehensive "safety net", single payer healthcare system, and heavily regulated financial system as being a part of the American Way. Conservatives are losing their influence, though, so things might not turn out that way.