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

[wierd]

So, the conclusion is that I did not say what I meant?

O.o

Here, I will simplify.

1) the DNC is not the ideological antithesis of the GOP.
2) the presumption that it "is", comes from the mainstream media's attempts at being 'fair and balanced", placing the DNC in a position it can't properly defend. A form of spin doctoring in a way. The protestations of the DNC only further whip the GOP into a frenzy. The media eats it like choloclate.
3) the real antithetical relationship between the GOP and the DNC, which is not reported on by the MSM (because it doesn't get the ratings) is that the GOP is an ideologically driven party, that engages in corruption on the side (party line first, THEN dirty business), and the DNC is a party driven by corruption, that dabbles in ideology on the side. (Dirty business, THEN feed the children.)

The tangent was to draw the discussion away from the false precondition that "democrats == ultraliberal". They are not. They are not even all that liberal. They just aren't conservative enough for the ultraconservatives. That's a very different thing.

While the ideological component of the relation is also of opposing sign, (democrats favor token gestues that are of the more 'liberal' alignment compared to the republican alignment) this is a red herring.

The real extreme is elsewhere.

[Helgoland]

Such a heuristic implies that greatjustice is always wrong though.

Eeeeh... You might want to polish up on the meaning of 'heuristic'.
And why do you think that the Democrats are mainly about corruption? That seems to imply that Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans, while the opposite is actually true. (At least when looking at legal 'corruption, which I assume you're doing.)

[wierd]

It is the nature of the corruption.

Typical MO for GOP flavor corruption, is "In-crowd gets first dibs". This is in line with their US-Them descision making.  This MO is part and parcel with the party's politics. "Party of NO", and all that. (If decision != origin_GOP then answer == "NO", regardless of other values in play. To whit, the horror that is the ACA. How hard exactly did they fight this thing, despite it being a veritable clone of a prior GOP proposal? So hard they almost defaulted the country? Yeah-- that's how strong the party line ties to ideology, and not the business.) Corruption issues surrounding the GOP and its individual members tend to focus in this area. Eg, look at the recent Christie scandal: Mayor did not comply with lead party member, lead party member uses corruption to send message.  The major theme again, "not for, thus against, any tactic to stop the against authorised, legal or not."  This theme carries over all over the damned place with the GOP and the organisations it created/exanded/empowered, such as the NSA. "Not american, thus enemy, all methods authorised, legal or not." (And recently "Not nationalistic enough, thus not american, all methods authorised, legal or not."-- and also with the recent federal court rulings about legality. "Agency == GOP origin; Approve.")

In the vast majority of cases of GOP corruption, the primary focus is on the protection and sustenance of a core group. The "us". At the expense of everyone else "the them". This core group is composed of the leaders of the GOP, who are so deeply programmed by their own koolaid that they honestly do believe that this corruption protects american interests. (Rather, "true" american interests.)

If you compare this with the DNC flavor corruption, they simply favor doing whatever the hell they want in full view of the public to personally enrich themselves, without any moral or ideological imperitive driving this behavior. Eg, you have revolving door regulatory positions with industry lobbyist positions, former lobbyist justices, and co.  There is no overriding ideological feature to combine and unify the nature of these corruption instances, in sharp contrast to that of the GOP.-- or if there is one, I have yet to determine what it is. The primary focus seems to be on staying in power, for the sole purpose of staying in power. Eg, corruption for the sake of being corrupt. The use of an ideological position appears to merely be a cover-- DNC politicians are well known for flipflopping on ideological grounds, in order to stay in office.

(Compare to GOP politicians, who jumped the shark just 2 months ago, and held the whole damned country hostage on ideological grounds-- clearly not bright if the goal is to stay in power.)

It is not that one is more corrupt than the other-- it is the nature and motives behind the corruption.

GOP == party ruled by ideology, that uses corruption.
DNC == Party that is ruled by corruption, that uses ideology.

That is how they are antithetical.

[Lagslayer]

Very thorough explaination. It's really quite refreshing.

[Max White]

If decision != origin_GOP then answer == "NO"

What sort of a programming language is this? I think what you are after is something like

IF decision.Origin != gop THEN answer = false

Seriously, you aren't comparing the answer to "NO", so don't use the double equals sign... Although from my syntax it is apparently an OOP language so if we were applying patterns currently it would be more like "IF decision.Origin != self THEN return false", although that makes it less clear who we are talking about.

[kaijyuu]

Ah, but this is the american politics thread. You're assuming they conform to standards, programming ones or otherwise.

Here we just write some bullshit and wonder why it doesn't work. And we like it that way.

[wierd]

I could be returning a string, "Origin_Gop" from function Descision(), but using pseudocode.

Or, I could be evaluating the contents of two variables (Descison$ and Origin_GOP), and if they don't match, returning a value into a third variable "Answer$", with the value "NO".

But since you seem confused, here's a VB flavor code snippet.

DIM Decision as Boolean
Dim Decision_Origin as string
Dim GOP_Answer as boolean

Call Caucus_Session(Decision, Decision_Origin)

'Gop makes its pronouncement after caucus session
If Decision_Origin == "GOP" then
     GOP_Answer = TRUE
Else
     If Decision_Origin == "DNC" then
        GOP_Answer == False
     Else
        Msgbox "Holy shit! Terrorists have taken over congress! Nuke from orbit! Save amerika!"
        End
    Endif
Endif

   
Now stop being a pedant.

[Max White]

Ok fine... I'll go against my better nature and not point out that using nouns as function names is ridicules. 

[wierd]

Maybe I *LIKE* torturing people who have to inherit my functions, ever think of that? I COULD,be a raging sadist! Muahahahahah!

(LOL!)

[FearfulJesuit]

In other news, I registered to vote today (as a Dem). Feels good, even though I live in probably one of the safest districts in the safest blue state in the country (Massachussetts' 1st Congressional District). At least I get a voice in the primaries, although at least for this cycle I'll just end up adding my vote to the hordes of Warren voters likely to run the state's contest.

[wierd]

Anymore, I register as "unaffiliated", out of principle.

[Frumple]

Eh, at least where I'm at you have to register with a party to have any influence re: voting regarding primary stuff. Which you kinda' want, especially for more localized junk. So even if you don't agree with some or most of a particular party, you register for one anyway. Just one of those various buggerups related to the states' voting system, really.

[Max White]

Wait, you need to give affiliation in order to register to vote?
How is that even legal?

[Frumple]

Nah, in order to vote in primaries. If you're unaffiliated, you get no say on who the parties present as candidates for the general elections (which, frankly, is to say you get no say in the general elections at all, really.). Still get to vote on whoever the parties give you to vote for (and anyone not party related that's running, of course, but wasted vote, etc., etc.), but you've got no influence over who that is. With party affiliation, you can at least put a little influence in on who the party puts up, et al.

[Max White]

Ah, so it is kind of like joining a party in the rest of the world, just less so. Well that makes a little more sense...