# "Well, what's wrong with slavery?"



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 28, 2015)

Nothing, according to conservative radio host Jan Mickelson. It's interesting how people that hold up "freedom" and the Constitution with the passion that conservatives do, still manage to espouse denying others their rights.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

> "And then we start to extort or exploit or indenture your labor."



I'm pretty sure this can happen to immigrants without being property of the state.

I can already hear someone say "It is about building a better tomorrow with the illegals of today!".

I wonder if it is part of an up coming wave started by Trump. He gets to say all sort of racist things without negative consequences to his campaign. A lot of supporters say that he speaks the truth without being politically correct, which really means saying racist stuff without caring. Maybe the host feels more confortable saying hateful things now. Not that conservative talk show host really were shy before.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am certainly not a conservative on social issues.  That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region.  I find it absolutely appalling for any 'news' publication to willingly sow such ignorance.  

...While I have traveled throughout the U.S. and overseas, I have lived in Iowa for much of my life.  I currently live Des Moines, an area which also tends to vote liberal, where apparently this show originates.  I had never heard of this Jan Mickelson person until the Huffington Post article with his comments was posted here.  He certainly is not much of a controversial, or popular figure, in this area.  His shows does not even appear to be advertised on local billboards or television.  What the Post has really done, in their pointed article, is to draw potential supporters to an unknown broadcaster.

...Finally, not many people around here bother to turn on AM radio unless the tornado sirens are sounding.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am not certainly not conservative on such social issues.  That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region.  I find it absolutely appalling for any news publication to willingly sow such ignorance.




Well, its an attitude that is typical enough among Republicans that it lets Trump be the leading Republican candidates in polls. Enough that other candidates wanted to join in the ban wagon and started using terms like "anchor babies".


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Well, its an attitude that is typical enough among Republicans that it lets Trump be the leading Republican candidates in polls. Enough that other candidates wanted to join in the ban wagon and started using terms like "anchor babies".




...Concern over the expense of dealing with illegal immigration is certainly not unique to the Republicans.  What is different, between the two parties, is the perceived urgency of the problem.  Many of the current Republican candidates are seeking support from southern / southwestern voters who deal with the issue on a daily basis.  With family down in Yuma, AZ, very close to the border, I hear weekly about the problems they are having with illegal immigrants, particularly in regards to drugs and violence.  Many of those voters are simply infuriated with the refusal of the federal government to deal with it. 

...The term 'anchor babies' has been present since the Regan elections in the 1980's.  Elections which saw a mass migration of conservative, southern Democrats, disgruntled with civil rights legislation, into the Republican party.  Prior to this point, the 'typical Republican' was defined as being socially moderate while still fiscally conservative.  When you actually dig past the media stereotypes, you find a range of voters (from liberal to conservative) within each party.

...I think Trump's current popularity is a basic, knee-jerk reaction by people fed up with an unresponsive government.  IMO, his attraction will wane once the primaries get closer and people start actually getting serious about making a real choice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am certainly not a conservative on social issues.  That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region.  I find it absolutely appalling for any 'news' publication to willingly sow such ignorance.



Well, first, both sides actively monitor each other.  Any politician or person with a high profile who does not understand this is asking to get pilloried.

Second, because you are not a conservative means that you are unlikely to have heard of this guy, but the fact that politicians are willing to go on his show means he's got some kind of pull with the party's base.  And THAT should frighten you.

'Cause here's the thing: he says that he's had all of the current GOP candidates on the show save Jeb, and further, that he meant that particular broadcast in a "Swiftian" sense.

https://mobile.twitter.com/amtalker/status/634072768926105600

...but how many out there- left or right- will get that (true or not)?

If a significant number of his listeners are unaware that he may have been engaging in extreme political sarcasm, that will inflame the radical right to action...political and otherwise.  We've already seen assaults on minorities inspired by the much less inflammatory words of Donald Trump.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, first, both sides actively monitor each other.  Any politician or person with a high profile who does not understand this is asking to get pilloried.
> 
> Second, because you are not a conservative means that you are unlikely to have heard of this guy, but the fact that politicians are willing to go on his show means he's got some kind of pull with the party's base.  And THAT should frighten you.




..I'll admit that you might be right.  I do, however, find the alleged popularity of talk show host who merits no local billboards or television advertising less than credible.  It might just be that with the plethora of conservative candidates out there, many of whom were excluded from nationalized televised debates, many are simply desperately grasping at any source of media attention.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> he says that he's had all of the current GOP candidates on the show save Jeb




..I wonder if they were 'on' the show in person or via telephone/twitter.  That knowledge would be a greater indicator of his 'pull.'


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ..I'll admit that you might be right.  I do, however, find the alleged popularity of talk show host who merits no local billboards or television advertising less than credible.  It might just be that with the plethora of conservative candidates out there, many of whom were excluded from nationalized televised debates, many are simply desperately grasping at any source of media attention.



He's not seeking THEM out- they're coming to him.  And have for some time, apparently.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/05/20/to-win-in-iowa-gop-candidates-must-win-over-thi/203709


was said:


> ..I wonder if they were 'on' the show in person or via telephone/twitter.  That knowledge would be a greater indicator of his 'pull.'



Most likely via telephone.  That's pretty standard unless the broadcaster ALSO has a TV show or the like- see Rush, Beck, Imus, Stern, etc.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ...Concern over the expense of dealing with illegal immigration is certainly not unique to the Republicans.  What is different, between the two parties, is the perceived urgency of the problem.  Many of the current Republican candidates are seeking support from southern / southwestern voters who deal with the issue on a daily basis.  With family down in Yuma, AZ, very close to the border, I hear weekly about the problems they are having with illegal immigrants, particularly in regards to drugs and violence.  Many of those voters are simply infuriated with the refusal of the federal government to deal with it.



The urgency of the problem? No, far from it. 
[sblock=The differences is the extreme reaction republicans have to immigrants and the violence they believe should be used deal with immigrants.] 







> The political right in America has been flirting with dangerous ideas for a while now, particularly on issues involving immigrants and minorities. But in the last few years the rhetoric has gotten particularly crazy.
> 
> Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert proposed using troops and ships of war to stop an invasion of immigrant children, whom he described as a 28 Days Later-style menace. "We don't even know all of the diseases, and how extensive the diseases are," he said.
> 
> ...



[/sblock]



> ...The term 'anchor babies' has been present since the Regan elections in the 1980's.  Elections which saw a mass migration of conservative, southern Democrats, disgruntled with civil rights legislation, into the Republican party.  Prior to this point, the 'typical Republican' was defined as being socially moderate while still fiscally conservative.  When you actually dig past the media stereotypes, you find a range of voters (from liberal to conservative) within each party.



Reagan was pretty damn racist, and he attracted like minded people.



> I think Trump's current popularity is a basic, knee-jerk reaction by people fed up with an unresponsive government.  IMO, his attraction will wane once the primaries get closer and people start actually getting serious about making a real choice.



That's what moderate republicans are hopping for. It doesn't look like it's going to happen. Trump's numbers have continued to stay high. He keeps drawing large crowds of republican voters to his rallies. 



[sblock=1]At least he wasn't willing to shoot them. That's an improvement, right?[/sblock]


----------



## Deathstrike (Aug 28, 2015)

I'm not intelligent to form a political opinion. Still, I wanted to post a link to Johnathan Swift's  "A Modest Proposal."

http://www.mercerislandschools.org/...ty/Domain/640/A Modest Proposal full text.pdf

Because it's pretty funny.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's what moderate republicans are hoping for. It doesn't look like it's going to happen. Trump's numbers have continued to stay high. He keeps drawing large crowds of republican voters to his rallies.




...Just because a lot of people have been checking him out, doesn't mean that they will vote for him.  Given the current media attention, I would attend one of his rallies simply to see if the circus lived up to the hype.  Doesn't mean that I would ever vote for him.  It's like going to see a car race in the hopes of seeing a crash.  People are attracted to the spectacle. 

...I have an innate distrust in polls.   Not only are they premature at this point, but anybody with a basic knowledge in statistics could construct a poll that backs any position.  It simply depends on the questions asked and the folks surveyed.

...Remember that nobody gave Obama much credit or attention back in the day before he won the Iowa caucuses.





"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

John F. Kennedy


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

> Remember that nobody gave Obama much credit or attention before he won the Iowa caucuses.




...plus there was Geraldine Ferrarro's gaffe- calling more attention to him by saying that the only reason anyone was talking about "the junior senator from Illinois" was his race.  

Which was absolutely correct, but by saying it aloud into a reporter's microphone, she REALLY called America's attention to him.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> I do, however, find the alleged popularity of talk show host who merits no local billboards or television advertising less than credible.




This is the internet age.  The idea that one needs local, printed advertising is, at this point, a bit quaint.

Put his name into Google, and after a couple news items about him, the top two hits are the radio stations website with links to his shows, and another to a page with his podcasts.  A few down, and you find his stuff is available on iTunes. Being on AM radio no longer means you are only heard on local AM radio, and going on with him then need not indicate a "streching" on anyone's part.



> I think Trump's current popularity is a basic, knee-jerk reaction by people fed up with an unresponsive government.




The reason may have been captured by Berkeley Breathed, in the new Bloom County:

[sblock]




[/sblock]



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...but how many out there- left or right- will get that (true or not)?




The real question is, is that intentional use of Poe's Law on his part, allowing him to claim innocence, while actively seeking to inflame people?


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ...The term 'anchor babies' has been present since the Regan elections in the 1980's.



It doesn't make more acceptable. 



> ...I think Trump's current popularity is a basic, knee-jerk reaction by people fed up with an unresponsive government.  IMO, his attraction will wane once the primaries get closer and people start actually getting serious about making a real choice.



Part of Trump's appeal might come from him yelling at government like an old man, but it is also his take on immigration that gives him his momemtum. His platform is focused on anti-immigration policies with an emphasis on Mexico. Build a giant wall, charge it to Mexico, deport 11 million people, change the constitution to prevent the babies of immigrants to become US citizens... He said many racist things about immigrants too, like they are the cause of rape in the US and he is forcing other Republicans candidates to say such horrible things. Basically, he gets support from racist people or people who do not think racism is a problem.

He is endorsed by white supremacist leaders. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...ationalists-fired-up-to-support-do#.tdyZMmEmM

He has been cited as an inspiration by two men who beat up an Hispanic homeless man. http://time.com/4004579/donald-trump-homeless-hispanic-crime/

And at least one guy yelling "white power" at one of his rally. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...lls_out_white_power_during_alabama_rally.html

He is being critriqued by Republicans for playing with white identity politics and even fascism. http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/ It is a bit ironic, since Republicans have been flirting with such concepts to get support from a part of the electorate for quite some time now. At least since Nixon's Southern Strategy.



> From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the N-word vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more N-word who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the N-wordphobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Introduction


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It doesn't make more acceptable.




Perhaps not but it is rather descriptive of the concept and it is a very real problem.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Well, its an attitude that is typical enough among Republicans...




Well I'd call myself Republican (more a centrist Republican than anything else), but I not only don't share this belief, I haven't heard this attitude from any Republican, let alone consider it "typical".


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Perhaps not but it is rather descriptive of the concept and it is a very real problem.




Why is it a real problem?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The real question is, is that intentional use of Poe's Law on his part, allowing him to claim innocence, while actively seeking to inflame people?



I think it very much is.



Ryujin said:


> Perhaps not but it is rather descriptive of the concept and it is a very real problem.




In all honesty, two weeks ago, I would have said much the same.  However, I did a little research: immigration courts don't care about the legal status of anyone except the person before the bench.  Illegal aliens with citizen children get deported just like those without; it is literally a legal non-factor.  The kids either go with their folks, or their parents make arrangements for them to stay in the country with someone else.

So that phrase is out of my lexicon.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Well I'd call myself Republican (more a centrist Republican than anything else), but I not only don't share this belief, I haven't heard this attitude from any Republican, let alone consider it "typical".




His polling results suggest that agreement with his attitudes is not as uncommon as one might like.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Well I'd call myself Republican (more a centrist Republican than anything else), but I not only don't share this belief, I haven't heard this attitude from any Republican, let alone consider it "typical".




You've never said heard a Republican say racist things about immigrants? That is the attitude I was talking about.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You've never said heard a Republican say racist things about immigrants? That is the attitude I was talking about.




It looks like there are websites dedicated to the subject.

https://gopquotes.wordpress.com/category/racism/

http://republicansareracists.com/


I couldn't tell you how accurate they are or in-context, but apparently there's enough meat to fuel a google search on "republican racist quotes"


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

Janx said:


> It looks like there are websites dedicated to the subject.
> 
> https://gopquotes.wordpress.com/category/racism/
> 
> ...




I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You've never said heard a Republican say racist things about immigrants? That is the attitude I was talking about.




I've heard plenty of people speak racist things, and as many were Democrats as were Republicans. I don't consider it a "party thing" to be racist. In fact the most racist person I personally know, is firmly a Democrat in all his politics. (Note: I'm speaking of people I actually know, and not socalled party leaders that make statements on TV - I don't "know" them.)


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In all honesty, two weeks ago, I would have said much the same.  However, I did a little research: immigration courts don't care about the legal status of anyone except the person before the bench.  Illegal aliens with citizen children get deported just like those without; it is literally a legal non-factor.  The kids either go with their folks, or their parents make arrangements for them to stay in the country with someone else.




So, manufactured controversy.  How nice.



gamerprinter said:


> I've heard plenty of people speak racist things, and as many were Democrats as were Republicans. I don't consider it a "party thing" to be racist. In fact the most racist person I personally know, is firmly a Democrat in all his politics. (Note: I'm speaking of people I actually know, and not socalled party leaders that make statements on TV - I don't "know" them.)




Let us change how we think about this, just a little.  In the end, personal quotes aren't the issue.  What gets put into law and policy matters.

Which party has a platform that includes more discriminatory policies?

Which party typically prefers if racial minorities don't go to the polls on election day?


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, manufactured controversy.  How nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let's see here's what I think I know of the categories by Party (which might not match reality):

Democrats want to block/restrict:
guns

Republicans want to block/restrict:
voting rights (voter ID laws which put higher burden on poor people who tend to be minorities)
women's reproductive rights (contraception, abortion, insurance coverage of same)
gay marriage
legalized drugs (I saw a Nixon quote about using drug enforcement to target blacks a while back)
freedom from religion (a bit of an inversion, they support Hobby Lobby and other decisions where people in power get to force their religious rules on their employees/customers, etc)
aid for the poor (in the form of Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, welfare)

I am certain I am blind to whatever other stupid things the Democrats want to restrict.  But the Republican party is well known for the list of things they want to restrict.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Which party typically prefers if racial minorities don't go to the polls on election day?




No one has ever advocated that I don't vote, and I am a minority (Japanese American). My son-in-law is Mexican born, he votes too. I couldn't tell you if "my party" prefers me to vote or not, never heard the contrary. I've heard more that if you don't vote, that's "un-American". Most of the democrats in my area are pro-union, and not so much labeled as liberals. The head of the local Republican party in my area is gay. So which party is more one thing than another, I don't know. Maybe things are more black-and-white in your area, but not so much here.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> No one has ever advocated that I don't vote, and I am a minority (Japanese American). My son-in-law is Mexican born, he votes too. I couldn't tell you if "my party" prefers me to vote or not, never heard the contrary. I've heard more that if you don't vote, that's "un-American". Most of the democrats in my area are pro-union, and not so much labeled as liberals. The head of the local Republican party in my area is gay. So which party is more one thing than another, I don't know. Maybe things are more black-and-white in your area, but not so much here.




Could be.  And you are also talking more local politics than state or federal perhaps.

I live in a Republican dominated state.  They are well known for gerrymandering districts and supporting voter id laws (that they just recently were in the news for)

Putting a requirement for a $20 ID so you can vote will coincidentally keep a large portion of the black/hispanic audience from voting because they make up the majority of the poor in TX.

They don't have to say "don't vote".  By arguing how it makes sense to enforce some simple standards on confirming the identity of lawful citizens, how is that a bad thing?

Because at face value, it should be no big deal to require certain kinds of proof.  Except that we don't actually have a voter fraud problem.  And that requirement just happens to raise a barrier to voting for poor people.  Who happen to be predominantly un-white.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Really I could give a crap regarding state and federal politics most of the time, I "live local" so that's all I'm really concerned about, though I do vote in state/federal elections. Most of the Hispanic's here have driver's licenses, so there's no real ID issues here - and practically everybody is poor here (one of the highest unemployment rates in Illinois). My county is like 98.5% white, though there is an almost entire community that is Hispanic (a very small town mind you, but still true, even with bilingual street signs).

Honestly most of the Republicans locally don't speak highly of Trump. My father is much more a conservative Republican than I, and he hates Trump. So what pundents say regarding national politics of anything means nothing to me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I don't consider it a "party thing" to be racist.



Than you are obviously wrong. Republicans made this their thing since at least the 1960s with the Southern Strategy. Here is an interesting quote about it: [/quote]From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the N-word vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more N-word who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the N-wordphobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[/quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Seems like a party thing to me. 

A lot of what Trump, currently the most popular Republican candidate in the primaries, said and what that radio host said is racist, don't you agree?


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Than you are obviously wrong. Republicans made this their thing since at least the 1960s with the Southern Strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> No one has ever advocated that I don't vote, and I am a minority (Japanese American).




No mainstream politician- or mainstream wannabe- is going to say that directly. They're smarter than that.

I had a friend who date a dude who worked on David Duke's gubernatorial campaign, so I got a close look at his platform materials.  Of the @2 dozen points in his platform, I could refute @20 of his positions with stuff out of freshman college courses.  One I couldn't: he was anti-crime, and nobody is going to run on a pro-crime platform.  But dig deeper, and his anti-crime measures were aimed squarely at minorities.

So, back to minorities voting.

Even throwing out the Jim Crow and Civil Rights abuses of the more distant past, GOP politicians are more likely to favor and propose measures like requiring ID to vote (usually while simultaneously making valid ID more difficult to get), reducing number of voting days, shortening polling hours, only counting absentee ballots in close elections, voting roll purges, and generally just making it more difficult to actually register in the first place (like opposing motor voter laws).

These are all more likely to suppress minority, youth, absentee (including military) and elderly voting than for middle aged white folks.  And "disparate impact" is one of the tests in deciding if a law is unconstitutional.

In addition, said measures rarely have an upside, at least, not the one claimed.  Usually, you'll see those regulations proposed to combat voting fraud.  Well, in-person voting fraud has been looked at pretty extensively: in the billions of votes cast nationwide in presidential elections over the past few decades, fewer than 3000 cases have been reported in which showing ID would have prevented the alleged fraud- only a couple dozen since 2000.  And there have been fewer than 100 convictions.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...acp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voter-purges

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...nds-of-minorities-from-27-states-voter-rolls/


And the cost of those measures?  Hundreds of thousands of voters struck from the rolls, hundreds of thousands if not millions more prevented from voting...mostly those who statistically tend to vote against the GOP.  Oh yeah- plus hundreds of millions of dollars spent preventing something exceedingly rare.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think it very much is.
> 
> In all honesty, two weeks ago, I would have said much the same.  However, I did a little research: immigration courts don't care about the legal status of anyone except the person before the bench.  Illegal aliens with citizen children get deported just like those without; it is literally a legal non-factor.  The kids either go with their folks, or their parents make arrangements for them to stay in the country with someone else.
> 
> So that phrase is out of my lexicon.




My understanding was that certain courts were loathe to send away citizens, or keep a parentless child. Perhaps it's a thing of the past. Perhaps it's a talking point that never was. From that angle IANAL and you are, so I'll defer to your research into the matter


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Sure I agree, but assign generalities based on what one candidate and one radio host stated is very dangerous thinking. I see that as two people, not some kind of general shared philosophy. As I've stated, no Republican locally makes such statements nor openly agree with those statements. So to extrapolate that what Trump and one TV host states is equivalent to a national trend is pure bunk. To state that my experience is anecdotal, heck, everything is anecdotal. Most people live in one place and don't travel the country seeking national opinions on any subject.

Go back a century before the 1960's and it was the Republicans (Lincoln) promoting the end of slavery - to state that racism is Republican thing, I defer to the pro-democrats that became the Confederacy.

I have many personal philosophies that aren't shared by anyone that I know of, so that political leaders not sharing my opinions, are an expectation by me. I don't agree with a lot of what they say, but just as often the opposing party's beliefs are far, far beyond my acceptance at the same time. Honestly, no political party in existence follows/shares most of my beliefs (nor most people for that matter), but I'm not seeking agendas, nor groups that fit my beliefs. I am quite content at being completely individual, and though for the most part have differing opinions, I generally don't share them with anyone.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> David Duke's gubernatorial campaign...




Who was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, so I don't consider his opinion, nor political platform one that I would even glance at. That he calls himself a Republican, I consider an insult to Republicans. Duke is just a racist pig, and not worth much consideration for anything.

As an aside, I'm in favor of the elimination of the electoral college, and requiring all votes to be counted for every issue. I'm in favor of online voting with never a need to visit an official voting booth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Sure I agree, but assign generalities based on what one candidate and one radio host stated is very dangerous thinking.




The trend is there if you care to look: republican politicians in Kansas, Texas, Florida, Georgia and other GOP dominated states routinely attempt to pass or advocate legislation targeting minority voters.  Often, such measures don't pass a Constitutional challenge, but some do (see the aforementioned Kansas).

Sometimes, the states even get caught and admit it:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...-voters-in-african-american-dominated-county/


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I had a friend who date a dude who worked on David Duke's gubernatorial campaign, so I got a close look at his platform materials.  Of the @2 dozen points in his platform, I could refute @20 of his positions with stuff out of freshman college courses.  One I couldn't: he was anti-crime, and nobody is going to run on a pro-crime platform.  But dig deeper, and his anti-crime measures were aimed squarely at minorities.




I've had a little experience refuting the "tough on crime" types here in Canada, who demand things like mandatory minimum sentences. It generally involves pointing to how that has failed in the USA and pointing out how our system seems to have a remarkably low recidivism rate just as it is, by quoting stats from The John Howard Society.

Of course, as you say, no one is going to run a pro-crime campaign. The easy out for the "tough on crime" folks is to point and declare that their opponent is soft on crime. It takes 5 seconds to get that out. It takes minutes to explain reality which, even then, may be ignored in favour of personal bias. Hell, I was one of them, before doing the research myself.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

I live in Illinois, not Kansas, Texas, Georgia and other GOP dominated states (my vote doesn't count in those places). I don't know, nor truly care what other states do on most issues.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Who was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, so I don't consider his opinion, nor political platform one that I would even glance at. That he calls himself a Republican, I consider an insult to Republicans. Duke is just a racist pig, and not worth much consideration for anything.



The problem with thinking he's an aberration is that some of his positions have been adopted by more mainstream politicians in the party at large.

IOW, you may have supported what he espouses because you didn't know he said it first.

...except he DIDN'T- a lot of his rhetoric was retreads from his predecessors in the early 1960s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/u...aign-is-now-in-louisiana-mainstream.html?_r=0

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...er-klan-leader-reshaped-republican-grassroots

Duke- and others of his ilk- isn't as far away from the heart of the GOP as the better angels of that party would like to believe.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (see the aforementioned Kansas).




...LOL, I think that Kansas is so, 'conservative', that even the most ardent Rebublicans question some of their views.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Again, I'm a centrist Republican, and generally find that on a national basis, what makes me a Republican primarily derives from my interest in small business, and regarding most other issues no political party has issues/beliefs that coincide with mine. I generally cannot stand conservatives just slightly less than my feelings for liberals - both are extremists in my point of view.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I generally cannot stand conservatives just slightly less than my feelings for liberals - both are extremists in my point of view.




..That's pretty close to my viewpoint as well.  IMO, both parties are only actively serving the radical 10%-15% on each wing.  The interests of the middle 70%-80% of the voting public, the 'silent majority' that both parties claim to be on their side, continue to be ignored.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I live in Illinois, not Kansas, Texas, Georgia and other GOP dominated states (my vote doesn't count in those places). I don't know, nor truly care what other states do on most issues.




Then it might be a matter that you are ill-informed as to what folks who call themselves Republican are trending towards.

Since the 1960's, the Republicans have favored platforms that aren't in non-white folks interest.

from immigration (targeting Hispanics in most cases)
poverty (the vast majority of poor people in the US are black)
drug law enforcement (targeting poor people who happen to be black)
social welfare programs (targeting poor people)

These kind of things don't show up in local election for town mayor or sherriff because generally, these programs are run at the state and federal level.  Which if you aren't paying attention to, you are ill-equipped to notice the trend.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Its not a matter of being ill-informed, rather I do not give a hoot what the trends say on any subject. Trends are meaningless to my point of view. When I vote, I am by myself in a booth, and not sharing it with any group, party or belief system. I don't care what they think. Of course most of my votes don't seem to win, but that's a different matter altogether. I consider voting an extremely private thing. I never participate in exit polls, more often, "I tell them where to go", when they ask me how I voted.

I am Republican based on certain core beliefs, but for the most part the larger agenda Republicans have aren't a part of my agenda.

Since I'm also not a libertarian, nor a communist, truly there is no party that represents me, but then I'm not really looking for a party. A party of one is all I need to vote.

I'm not a person who seeks out others who think like me, to the point that I don't share my beliefs with anyone, so no one would know if they think like me, and I don't ask what they think as well. I like people in general, but don't require those people to think like me.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ..That's pretty close to my viewpoint as well.  IMO, both parties are only actively serving the radical 10%-15% on each wing.  The interests of the middle 70%-80% of the voting public, the 'silent majority' that both parties claim to be on their side, continue to be ignored.




That's probably part of the problem.  Again, I likely can't see how whacked the Democratic side is, but the Republican side has gotten increasingly more fanatical/extreme since the 80s.

Those folks making noise for the cameras at least, are getting way out there.  Which is drawing more of the extremists to the party.

At this point, folks who align with extreme christian ideology, or hate groups would all say they vote Republican, rather than Democrat.

That says there's something about what the Republicans are preaching that appeals to them.  I'm sure there's some weird group that staunchly supports Democrat that creeps folks out, but it's pretty glaring on the Republican side.  Heck, the majority of terror attacks since 9/11 have been conservative extremists (aka folks who'd die before they voted Democrat).

There's something rotten in Denmark.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 28, 2015)

I find it frustrating how the opposite problem from "anchor babies" isn't discussed, the social and personal costs of a person born in the US, raised in the US, who may never have left the country, being exiled from their home. This goes double if we're talking repeal of birthright citizenship, instead of children of undocumented immigrants, though the problem still exists in just the later case.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

Janx said:


> I'm sure there's some weird group that staunchly supports Democrat that creeps folks out




...From what I understand, the objection is that the radical left supports such extreme socialist views that it focuses on a complete rejection of capitalism and embraces communist philosophies.  

...Which is an interesting charge seeing that many on the extreme left appear to be, or are children of, wealthy capitalists.  But then again, who knows, Marx was from a wealthy/upper middle class family as well.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Aug 28, 2015)

Trumpy, you can say stupid things!


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 28, 2015)

let's see if i can sum this all up : all republicans bad evil juju all democrats less bad evil juju..all conservatives bad evil juju alll liberals less bad evil juju...

EDIT: Note that the above is not my own personal views it


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 28, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Perhaps not but it is rather descriptive of the concept and it is a very real problem.



It is, but according to another republican, it's actually Asians that are the problem.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Sure I agree, but assign generalities based on what one candidate and one radio host stated is very dangerous thinking.




You want us to start finding the comments and policies from the various current GOP presidential candidates that show such positions?  Do you really think we will have a problem doing so?  If we find the majority of the GOP presidential candidates - the people who are going to represent the party in elections, and possibly hold the highest office in the land - hold such positions, how can we then say the party (as a collective, not as individuals) isn't such?

A little while back, a form of sexism argument came up.  When women would say they'd experienced sexism, a man would retort, "Not all men do that!"  It is a defensive deflection that 1) Make it about the man's righteousness, rather than the woman's experiences, and 2) effectively implies that there isn't a problem.  The answer was, "Maybe not, but *all* women!"  The fact of the matter is that *enough* men are sexist that the problem is real and ubiquitous for women, and therefore needs to be addressed.  

Thus, in analogy, I say that the fact that not all Republicans are personally overt racists does not mean that the GOP's racist policy proposals are not a problem.

There is a point where, as a person of conscience, one should look at any group you affiliate with and say, "You know what? This group has gone too far," rather than protest, "Not all of us are like that!"  At that point, you have two choices - leave the group, or work to change the group.  Because, if you maintain affiliation as it is, and not worry about it, you are tacitly approving of the behavior.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ..So, all Republicans are racist because some of them once tried to recruit Democrat racists?



Hello strawman my old friend. You've come to talk to me again...

Anyway, the Southern Strategy marks the start of the modern Republican party's appeal to white racist. It isn't the only people it trys to get in its coalition. Evangelists are another group. So are libertarians. Nowadays they'll say that immigrants need to self-deport, that a wall needs to be build between the US and Mexico or that there is a plague of anchor babies (which there isn't any evidence of), to appeal to racists. It is a soft appeal. No need to call anyone names or say they are inferior.

They'll say that voting needs to be controlled to prevent fraud, but there is very little evidence of electoral fraud. Controlling votes just makes it harder for some minorities and the poor to vote. And that is a good thing for Republicans as those democraphics tend to vote Democrate. 

Trump takes it further by being far less subtle and now Republicans are paying the price of appealing to racists and including them in their base. If people are still following Trump after he said Hispanics are behinf rapes in the US's, why shouln't I consider these people racist?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ...LOL, I think that Kansas is so, 'conservative', that even the most ardent Rebublicans question some of their views.




Yeah- even some of the current state legislators are starting to voice concerns about the path Kansas is on.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Sure I agree, but assign generalities based on what one candidate and one radio host stated is very dangerous thinking.



Saying negative things about immigrants, inner city kids, wanting build walls, favoring deportation, are pretty common comments among Republican candidates.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

> There is a point where, as a person of conscience, one should look at any group you affiliate with and say, "You know what? This group has gone too far," rather than protest, "Not all of us are like that!" At that point, you have two choices - leave the group, or work to change the group. Because, if you maintain affiliation as it is, and not worry about it, you are tacitly approving of the behavior.




Several newly minted Independents & Democrats are former members of the GOP.

As I recall, all all of the current presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side are former Republicans.


----------



## Janx (Aug 28, 2015)

trappedslider said:


> let's see if i can sum this all up : all republicans bad evil juju all democrats less bad evil juju..all conservatives bad evil juju alll liberals less bad evil juju...
> 
> EDIT: Note that the above is not my own personal views it




yeah, that's pretty much it 

As I noted in several of my posts where I list the "sins" of the Republican party, I am likely unable to see what "bad" things the Democratic party may also be standing for.



When Republicans support Hobby Lobby interfering in a woman's right to use her health insurance for birth control, they are violating HIPPA and enforcing their dominance over a woman's free right to choose how to use her money in a way that isn't applied to men.

When somebody counters that Democrats want to be "Socialism" as if that's a bad thing, I'd have to ask, how is that singling out a demographic?  How exactly is Socialism itself specifically wrong?  How does it mean there won't be any capitalism.

This is why the list is so long on the Republican side.  There is just too much discrimination against specific groups of people.  A lot of backed by religious reasoning, and ironically, a lot of it contrary to the very teachings of that religions key figure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2015)

One thing distinguishing the Democrats' radical fringe from the more radical elements of the GOP is that the ultra-left Democrats tend not to rise very high within the organization.  At least, not in the past few decades.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Trump takes it further by being far less subtle and now Republicans are paying the price of appealing to racists and including them in their base. If people are still following Trump after he said Hispanics are being rapes in the US's, why shouln't I consider these peopel racist?




..Does Trump bring out the conservative radicals? Yes, he does.  
..Are many of those conservative radicals racist? Yes, they are.  
..Do they represent the Republican party as a whole? No, they don't.  
..Are there racist Democrats? Sure there are.

..Stereotyping all Republicans as racists, is just as ignorant as Trump stereotyping all Mexicans as rapists.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ..Does Trump bring out the conservative radicals?  Yes, he does.
> ..Are many of those conservative radicals racist?  Yes, they are.
> ..Do they represent the Republican party as a whole?  No, they don't.
> ...Are there racist Democrats?  Sure there are.
> ...




It may be unfortunate stereotyping to paint all Republican with the racist brush... but you also have to look at the collective output of GOP voters. Are racist policies coming out of the GOP? Look at the minority targeting voter suppression laws coming out. Now how is it that non-racist Republicans somehow generate racist policy? And can't the GOP voters be held accountable for the actions of the party they support considering their votes may well have contributed to that party's electoral success and taking the reins of government?


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ..Does Trump bring out the conservative radicals? Yes, he does.
> ..Are many of those conservative radicals racist? Yes, they are.
> ..Do they represent the Republican party as a whole? No, they don't.




Does anything represent the Republican party as a whole? Certainly the leader in the polls for the Republican nomination is a good warning sign of the underlying nature of the party. In arguments like this, there's always a lot of goalpost moving; what represents the good side of my group is not what represents the bad side of my group, nor the good side of your group. Even when the goalposts don't move, there's (at least implied) equivocation; talking about the group as a group on the stage of life, and then talking about the True Scotsman members of the group. Certainly if you remove the conservative radicals from the Republicans, they would fail to win presidential elections, and most close elections anywhere in the country.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2015)

was said:


> ..Does Trump bring out the conservative radicals? Yes, he does.




Problem:  The polls don't single out conservative radicals.  However, Trump leads in the polls by a wide margin.  Thus, either the "radical" arm of the party is very large, or people not in the "radical" end are leaning Trump.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As I recall, all all of the current presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side are former Republicans.




What?

I repeat - what?  Cite, please, that Bernie Sanders was ever a Republican.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 28, 2015)

Janx said:


> When somebody counters that Democrats want to be "Socialism" as if that's a bad thing, I'd have to ask, how is that singling out a demographic?  How exactly is Socialism itself specifically wrong?  How does it mean there won't be any capitalism.




I agree.  A lot of people forget that capitalism, socialism, and communism are part of spectrum and not wholly separate.  The moment any regulation was added to the pure capitalist system, it slid a degree or two closer to socialism.  And people can complain about regulation being overly onerous all they want, but look at what happens when regulations are removed, and what happens before they are imposed.

Before regulation, you have Sears selling morphine and syringes, cocaine toothache drops, and Bayer's children's cough syrup (whose active ingredient was heroin) in their mail order catalog.  Before regulation, you have airlines legally able to detain passengers aboard a plane on the runway for three, five, or even twelve hours at a time without having to let them off.

After the removal of some regulations of financial institutions, you have an environment where banks were allowed to speculate when they formerly could not.  This led directly to the widespread nature of the financial crisis when toxic loans packaged into toxic loan securities were revealed to be worthless.

Now, not all regulation is good, pot being a schedule one drug is idiotic, and not all regulation is effective, the FDA doesn't have the manpower to actually check a reasonable quantity of food and drugs, but some people think that's a valid reason to throw out all regulation.  It's as if people have lost the will to actually fix anything, thinking instead that if it doesn't work with 100% effectiveness and efficiency then it needs to be thrown out.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

billd91 said:


> It may be unfortunate stereotyping to paint all Republican with the racist brush... but you also have to look at the collective output of GOP voters. Are racist policies coming out of the GOP? Look at the minority targeting voter suppression laws coming out. Now how is it that non-racist Republicans somehow generate racist policy? And can't the GOP voters be held accountable for the actions of the party they support considering their votes may well have contributed to that party's electoral success and taking the reins of government?




..First, I don't really know how I got stuck playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Republicans. Sigh,  here we go.

..Second, we'd have to look at each 'racist policy' individually to see if they actually qualify as such, or if they are being blown out of proportion by their opponents.  Let's look at the voter suppression debate.  I have no doubt that there are Republicans are trying to limit the minority vote.  But does that mean that you shouldn't have to present any ID in order to vote?  I need one to check out a book from my public library.  Should checking out a book be held as a greater responsibility than voting for the president of our country?  Aren't voter registration cards free?  

.....The Democrats have compared the voter ID debate to past Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to create a furor over the issue.  A somewhat ironic example due to the fact that such devices were created by their own party.  But isn't that hypocritical considering long history of voter fraud and suppression in their own party?  Look at the old Tammany Hall days in NYC?  They coined the phrase "vote early and vote often"  They also used to take immigrants fresh off the boats over to the polls to vote for their party.

..........Do we want to make voter fraud that much simpler?  Should we take no steps whatsoever to ensure the integrity of the voting process?When I was in college, several students were arrested for voter fraud.  All of them admitted voting Democrat, voting at four different polling stations.  They registered there on the spot figuring that no one would ever check.  They were wrong.  Even so, there is simply no device for the removal of the fraudulent votes once cast.    

..Third, I guess GOP voters could be held accountable for laws passed by those they elect.  Of course, to do so would mean that those politicians actually do what they stated they would before they were elected.  No politicians would dare to make promises to get elected and then stray from them would they?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> You want us to start finding the comments and policies from the various current GOP presidential candidates that show such positions?  Do you really think we will have a problem doing so?  If we find the majority of the GOP presidential candidates - the people who are going to represent the party in elections, and possibly hold the highest office in the land - hold such positions, how can we then say the party (as a collective, not as individuals) isn't such?
> 
> A little while back, a form of sexism argument came up.  When women would say they'd experienced sexism, a man would retort, "Not all men do that!"  It is a defensive deflection that 1) Make it about the man's righteousness, rather than the woman's experiences, and 2) effectively implies that there isn't a problem.  The answer was, "Maybe not, but *all* women!"  The fact of the matter is that *enough* men are sexist that the problem is real and ubiquitous for women, and therefore needs to be addressed.
> 
> ...




Let's be clear, when I say I am primarily Republican, especially regarding local elections, I vote regarding local elections only. Although I voted in the last Presidential election as a Republican, I didn't vote in the previous election, because I hated George W, and his opponent, so neither candidate fits my agenda - when there's no best candidate, to me there is no candidate. I have even voted Democrat once in a past election, however, as I've stated I'm a centrist Republican, and really haven't seen a centrist candidate. So don't get the idea that I somehow agree with most Republicans on anything - I usually don't, and have plainly stated that in previous posts. When I state that I haven't heard any Republicans state that, I am speaking North Central Illinois only and I'm not really speaking of candidates so much as Republican individuals such as myself and the people I know. I don't know the candidates at all, and am not speaking of them (and will not).

Really, I'm more an independant, though of the established parties that I sometimes vote for Republicans are closest to a party I have supported in the past. Don't assign the Trumps of the world as part of my group, I don't really have, nor want a group to be a part. So you can stop right there with your wrong assumptions right now. They don't apply to me. And locally, immigrants aren't what the issues are about.



goldomark said:


> Saying negative things about immigrants, inner city kids, wanting build walls, favoring deportation, are pretty common comments among Republican candidates.




Read, what I say to Umbram. These Republican candidates you speak of, are not speaking for me, so what their opinions are - are meaningless to me, I'm not voting for them. There is one candidate I'm on the fence on, but he's not a leading candidate. There are no leading Republicans that ever fit my "agenda".


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Problem:  The polls don't single out conservative radicals.  However, Trump leads in the polls by a wide margin.  Thus, either the "radical" arm of the party is very large, or people not in the "radical" end are leaning Trump.




...Don't trust any poll.  Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.


----------



## was (Aug 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I didn't vote in the previous election, because I hated George W, and his opponent, so neither candidate fits my agenda - when there's no best candidate, to me there is no candidate.




..Last time that I felt like this I used the write-in option and voted for Dennis Leary for president.  It's funny to see the write-in votes.  It turns out that Mickey Mouse is a popular candidate in every presidential election.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Don't trust any poll.  Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.




You've made various claims, like Trump bringing out the conservative radicals not representative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't see why anyone should give those claims the least bit of thought if you deny any source of information with any sort of reliability that could back up those claims. Without polls, you're pulling those claims out of gut feelings and thin air.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> What?
> 
> I repeat - what?  Cite, please, that Bernie Sanders was ever a Republican.




 forgot about Bernie.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2015)

> Aren't voter registration cards free?




According to a 2014 analysis of real economic costs of obtaining a "free" voter ID card done by researchers at Harvard, no:



> http://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf
> 
> 1. Time costs involved in learning about photo voter ID requirements and how to meet them.
> 2. Costs of purchasing required birth, marriage, naturalization and other certificates. In some
> ...




(Typing on phone. Will clean up formatting later.). _Edit: done._

To clarify: it is costing 100s of millions of extra dollars to implement and administer restrictive Voter ID laws which have been demonstrated to have a disparate impact upon the eligibility of the young, the elderly and minority voters.  

All in the name of preventing/punishing in-person Voter ID fraud with an occurrence of @1 per 20,000,000 votes.

Not only does the disparate impact issue make this probably unconstitutional, a simple cost/benefit analysis makes it look fiscally irresponsible.


----------



## was (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> You've made various claims, like Trump bringing out the conservative radicals not representative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't see why anyone should give those claims the least bit of thought if you deny any source of information with any sort of reliability that could back up those claims. Without polls, you're pulling those claims out of gut feelings and thin air.




...Sigh, once again I am forced to defend a party I don't particularly care for.

...That Trump brings out the conservative vote is a fairly conclusive observation.  As is the fact that he does not represent the whole party.  When you actually turn the channel away from Trump, you hear Republicans screaming over and over again that he doesn't represent the party.  Using Trump to demonize the whole party has simply become an easy tool for liberals to attack their foes.  By using it they don't really have to do much work focusing on the platforms of individual candidates.

... I also know many Republicans living in various parts of the country.  We talk politics regularly and they have made me well aware that Trump does not represent the party

...I am well-versed on the construction of polls and surveys.  Not only have I studied them at the college level, I have constructed them and been employed as a survey/poll taker.  Polls and surveys are easily manipulated depending on what questions are asked and who you survey.  You should never take any poll as factual until you have the opportunity to examine its construction and how it was conducted.

...Finally, I don't expect anybody to take my word as the ultimate authority on any issue.  I hope that people are motivated enough to research issues on their own.  Research that does not rely upon biased interpretations made by politically-motivated sources.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Sigh, once again I am forced to defend a party I don't particularly care for.




You're not being asked to defend a party; you're being asked to defend throwing out the evidence and then making evidential claims.



> ... I also know many Republicans living in various parts of the country.  We talk politics regularly and they have made me well aware that Trump does not represent the party




The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data.



> ...I am well-versed on the construction of polls and surveys.  Not only have I studied them at the college level, I have constructed them and been employed as a survey/poll taker.  Polls and surveys are easily manipulated depending on what questions are asked and who you survey.  You should never take any poll as factual until you have the opportunity to examine its construction and how it was conducted.




I'm not saying we shouldn't question our sources of data. I'm saying that without polls, you don't know anything. If 67% of Republicans are ready to make Trump their president, it doesn't matter what other people are saying. And the only way the rest of us know that 67% of Republicans aren't ready to make Trump their president is polls.

Not liking the evidence before you is not a justification for spinning anecdote and personal impressions of press coverage into actual fact. There's always an epistemological argument for saying we don't know anything, and that's the only philosophically acceptable answer once you've declare the most reliable sources of data unreliable.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Don't trust any poll.  Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.




Some polls are biased therefore all polls are worthless?

Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2015)

> That Trump brings out the conservative vote is a fairly conclusive observation. As is the fact that he does not represent the whole party.




True.  At current poling, @70%+ of Republicans prefer other candidates.  However, when you look at how the other non- establishment, iconoclastic GOP candidates are polling- Carson, Cruz, Walker & Huckabee- they account for more than 50% of prospective republican voters.  

Put differently, supposedly mainstream GOP candidates are losing the race to their more controversial competition.


----------



## was (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> You're not being asked to defend a party; you're being asked to defend throwing out the evidence and then making evidential claims.
> 
> The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data.
> 
> ...




...Your posts indicate a dismissive nature/combative attitude towards any data/evidence/facts that conflict with your own views.  In that case, there is simply nothing to be gained in my attempting to continue this discussion.  Please have a nice evening.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Don't trust any poll.  Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.




You do realize, you've just made this a religious argument?

By flatly rejecting scientific evidence without so much as considering the validity of that evidence, you render any and all claims you make non-falsifiable.  This leaves the discussion only at the level of belief,  with nothing that could bring you to reconsider your position critically.  While that may be very comfortable for you, since it makes your position tidily unassailable, that is not reasonable.  Unreasonable, in the fairly literal sense of reason no longer being applicable.  

While this makes your position and approach clear, for which I do thank you, it also likely leaves you without a route to meaningful input in the rest of the discussion, as we now know that your position is not open to debate.  You've just rendered yourself into a dogmatist, and who wants to beat a head against that?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Your posts indicate a dismissive nature/combative attitude towards any data/evidence/facts that conflict with your own views.




And yours doesn't?

Heck, what *evidence* have you submitted?  "Plausible narrative" is not evidence.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Your posts indicate a dismissive nature/combative attitude towards any data/evidence/facts that conflict with your own views.




That's nonsense. The question was, how can you know how much support Trump has and how much he represents the Republican Party if you ignore polls? I'm not even really discussing Trump; the question is about how we understand the field under discussion. No, asking a couple of your friends is not a substitute for polling 50,000 randomly sampled people.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Just because a lot of people have been checking him out, doesn't mean that they will vote for him.



These are people that are _checking him out_. They are people that are supporting him. 



> Given the current media attention, I would attend one of his rallies simply to see if the circus lived up to the hype.  Doesn't mean that I would ever vote for him.  It's like going to see a car race in the hopes of seeing a crash.  People are attracted to the spectacle.



More than likely, you would be an outlier1 at one of his rallies. 

[sblock=1]Not counting reporters and other media personnel there to cover the rally or workers at the place the rally takes place.[/sblock]


----------



## nightwind1 (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am certainly not a conservative on social issues.  That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region.  I find it absolutely appalling for any 'news' publication to willingly sow such ignorance.
> 
> ...While I have traveled throughout the U.S. and overseas, I have lived in Iowa for much of my life.  I currently live Des Moines, an area which also tends to vote liberal, where apparently this show originates.  I had never heard of this Jan Mickelson person until the Huffington Post article with his comments was posted here.  He certainly is not much of a controversial, or popular figure, in this area.  His shows does not even appear to be advertised on local billboards or television.  What the Post has really done, in their pointed article, is to draw potential supporters to an unknown broadcaster.
> 
> ...Finally, not many people around here bother to turn on AM radio unless the tornado sirens are sounding.



It's not an "obscure" source. He's been on the air on WHO, a 50,000 watt station, for more than 20 years.

Of course, WHO also plays Limpballs, and another local reich-winger, Simon Conway.


----------



## nightwind1 (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Sigh, once again I am forced to defend a party I don't particularly care for.
> 
> ...That Trump brings out the conservative vote is a fairly conclusive observation.  As is the fact that he does not represent the whole party.



And yet, he has a double-digit lead over EVERY OTHER Republican candidate. That's certainly not a MINORITY.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

was said:


> ...Finally, not many people around here bother to turn on AM radio unless the tornado sirens are sounding.



Rush Limbaugh is on AM radio. He gets 13.5+ million listeners per week. Obviously there are a few people tuning in to AM radio. I'm betting Jan Mickelson gets a decent enough number of people listening to him that he has been able to stay on the air.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

nightwind1 said:


> And yet, he has a double-digit lead over EVERY OTHER Republican candidate. That's certainly not a MINORITY.




I can't find the fivethirtyeight link, but Nate Silver points out that if you take his approve - disapprove numbers, he ranks below the middle of the pack, at +4--47% approve, 43% disapprove. Rubio, for example, may have only 6% of the people picking him, but he's like a +25% by the same ranking. Rubio vs. Trump, Rubio would win.

Trump is bad for America and he's a sign of bad things going on in the Republican party, and I would argue that he joins of the ranks of Republicans who get to say things the base wants to hear that the Republicans who want political credibility can't say. But if you look at the elected Republicans, who Nate Silver thinks will decide the election, they're behind Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Paul and Kasich, without a single one behind Trump.(http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/)


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 29, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Read, what I say to Umbram. These Republican candidates you speak of, are not speaking for me, so what their opinions are - are meaningless to me, I'm not voting for them. There is one candidate I'm on the fence on, but he's not a leading candidate. There are no leading Republicans that ever fit my "agenda".



It isn't about you. It is about the Republican party.

How many Republican politicians must propose racist policies or say racist things before we can start labelling the party as racist or trying to appeal to racists? What would be a threshold you would accept? 

What does it say about a party if it wants to appeal to racists?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 29, 2015)

goldomark said:


> How many Republican politicians must propose racist policies or say racist things before we can start labelling the party as racist or trying to appeal to racists? What would be a threshold you would accept?




The question should be framed as "How many Republicans must propose (or vote for) racist policies before it can be labeled as racists, which would be answered with it's majority", not how many of it's politicians, since the current batch of Presidential candidates only seems to represent the extreme right of the party (whom I consider a minority and not in anyway representative of my Republican ideals, so not worth being applicable to labels). The opinions of a few bad apples should'nt have the power to give the entirety of its group with any kind of label, especially when not representing its majority.

Unfortunately in American politics today, its seems that only the extreme left or the extreme right have a chance at winning Presidential elections. Not that there's never a centrist candidate, they just never win elections. I have very little faith in American politics, having lost it many elections ago.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2015)

> The question should be framed as "How many Republicans must propose (or vote for) racist policies before it can be labeled as racists, which would be answered with it's majority", not how many of it's politicians, since the current batch of Presidential candidates only seems to represent the extreme right of the party (whom I consider a minority and not in anyway representative of my Republican ideals, so not worth being applicable to labels). The opinions of a few bad apples should'nt have the power to give the entirety of its group with any kind of label, especially when not representing its majority.




The problem with framing the issue like that is that it is the politicians- _who were elected by the members of the party_- who are in positions of power and are advocating and passing laws that either have disparate impact or are outright discriminatory.

Now, it is a reality of American politics that the majority of eligible voters usually do not vote, not just in general elections, but also within the parties themselves.  However, goodly numbers of those "bad apples" are commanding the lions' share of those who DO vote.

So, either the majority of GOP members are voting for EXACTLY the radical politicians they want- which I do not believe- OR the majority of GOP members are opposed to the rise of the radical right, but too many of those opposed are not exercising their right to vote.  I think the latter is far more likely, given the aforementioned state of American voter apathy.  

But as Geddy Lee sings in Rush's "Freewill", "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."  By not voting, those abstaining are complicit in the ascension of polarized politicians.

The result: a party probably composed mostly of moderates and liberal conservatives disproportionately represented by radicals.  Radicals pushing agendas harmful to American people and the political system.

And it is a group's actions that define its image, not the individual members.  Especially when the group is acting under the guidance of those elected to represent those members. 

Aesop's fable of "The Farmer and the Stork" tells us we are known by the company we keep:
http://www.litscape.com/author/Aesop/The_Farmer_and_the_Stork.html



> Unfortunately in American politics today, its seems that only the extreme left or the extreme right have a chance at winning Presidential elections.




AFAIK, no truly extreme left politician has ever won a national election, and I can't think of any radical left governors, either.

Meanwhile, the extreme right has, so far, failed to win a presidential election.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Rush Limbaugh is on AM radio. He gets 13.5+ million listeners per week. Obviously there are a few people tuning in to AM radio. I'm betting Jan Mickelson gets a decent enough number of people listening to him that he has been able to stay on the air.




Middle-aged and older people listen to AM talk radio. These people are demographically more likely to vote.

This has been making the rounds lately:


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> I can't find the fivethirtyeight link, but Nate Silver points out that if you take his approve - disapprove numbers, he ranks below the middle of the pack, at +4--47% approve, 43% disapprove. Rubio, for example, may have only 6% of the people picking him, but he's like a +25% by the same ranking. Rubio vs. Trump, Rubio would win.




Not in "first across the finish line" polling, he wouldn't necessarily.  Especially in a wide field, like we currently have in the primary race.  The "disapprove" numbers tell you how many folks will not vote for him, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a strong signal for a single other candidate.  The 43% who disapprove of Trump don't necessarily all go to Rubio, even in a straight head-to-head matchup.  Many, disillusioned, might not vote at all.  Right now, they'd go to up to a dozen other people still in the race, leaving Trump with the only strong signal, and thus the Primary win.

This is a large part of why early polling in large fields doesn't really tell you who would win.  There are too many variables in play.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> AFAIK, no truly extreme left politician has ever won a national election, and I can't think of any radical left governors, either.




"Radical" and "extreme" are not well-defined terms.

For example, right now, if one of the candidates tried to open a conversation on gun control, you can be pretty sure the other side would call that candidate 'extreme left'.  Heck, they have called Obama a 'socialist' (which, yes, shows that the speaker knows squat-all about socialism, but the point stands).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> "Radical" and "extreme" are not well-defined terms.
> 
> For example, right now, if one of the candidates tried to open a conversation on gun control, you can be pretty sure the other side would call that candidate 'extreme left'.  Heck, they have called Obama a 'socialist' (which, yes, shows that the speaker knows squat-all about socialism, but the point stands).




I was thinking in the non-partisan political sense, and had the point you made of Obama firmly in mind.  While he is left of the Democratic party's center, he is a long way away from being a communist (as some incorrectly call him) or representative of the other groups that populate that end of the Democratic Party's internal bell curve.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> "Radical" and "extreme" are not well-defined terms.
> 
> For example, right now, if one of the candidates tried to open a conversation on gun control, you can be pretty sure the other side would call that candidate 'extreme left'.  Heck, they have called Obama a 'socialist' (which, yes, shows that the speaker knows squat-all about socialism, but the point stands).




As with Justice Potter Stewart regarding pornography I don't know that I can define those terms adequately, but I know it when I see it.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> The question should be framed as "How many Republicans must propose (or vote for) racist policies before it can be labeled as racists, which would be answered with it's majority", not how many of it's politicians,




Any group is known by what it does, and a group formed to exert political power is going to be known for how it exerts political power. Someone who supports that party despite how it does that is saying more about themselves then the party.



> since the current batch of Presidential candidates only seems to represent the extreme right of the party




That seems unlikely. A dozen candidates to the extreme right of the party could easily be felled by one candidate to the slight right of the party, since that person should logically be closer to the positions of the left half plus some of the right (and thus gain their votes) then any one of those dozen. I don't see any forces in American democracy that could pop up a dozen candidates on an extreme flank of a party and none more centrist. In the current Republican field, candidates towards the left like Bush and Rubio are doing okay in polls, and those to the left of them, like Christie, aren't doing so well, leading to the conclusion that the center of the Republican Party is at least to the right of candidate Christie.



> Unfortunately in American politics today, its seems that only the extreme left or the extreme right have a chance at winning Presidential elections. Not that there's never a centrist candidate, they just never win elections.




Most people living in parliamentary systems laugh at that, since they have far-right and far-left parties that repeatedly get seats in their parliaments and have to be negotiated with to form a government. The very nature of our winner-take-all system, which is usually a race between the results of two winner-take-all systems, means that a presidential candidate can't have been seen as too far from the center (because then his opponent would have grabbed the independents and swing-vote), but had to be enough to grab the nomination. It doesn't tend to produce extremists.



Umbran said:


> Not in "first across the finish line" polling, he wouldn't necessarily.  ... Right now, they'd go to up to a dozen other people still in the race, leaving Trump with the only strong signal, and thus the Primary win.




Nate Silver puts the numbers at 2% for a Trump primary win.* For one, it's not a national vote; it's a series of staggered state-wise votes, where the crowd usually shakes itself down to two or three real players long before the vote is done. For another, it's not a popular vote; it is a quite complex system with a lot of power left to the influential members of the party, who don't like Trump. 

* http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Middle-aged and older people listen to AM talk radio. These people are demographically more likely to vote.



This true, which is why republicans in general get labeled as racist ad hateful. Are most republicans racist? Probably not. But unfortunately they are the real silent majority, unlike the supposedly silent majority Trump refers to. Most of these republicans don't go out and vote for politicians that are more moderate. Instead, they let the racist members of their party elect the politicians that will represent them. So when someone says that the republican party is racist or hateful or whatever, they are in a sense correct. The people representing the party are racist and hateful, and they are the ones being chosen by their voters to represent them. 



> This has been making the rounds lately:




The funny thing is that republicans see being called on the "casual racism,crass materialism, relentless self-aggrandizement, and vulgarity on an epic scale" the "politically correct" crowd attacking them. 

There also seems to be this anti-education feeling in the republican party. They push this idea of "elites," meaning those that have gone to university, as being the evil liberals and socialist looking down on those that don't have an education. Rick Santorum called Obama a snob because Obama wanted people to go to college. Rick Santorum also has a BA in political science1, an MBA, and a JD degree. I tend to think that republican politicians like their voters to be uneducated. It's easier to get people to believe they should work harder for others and be grateful they have a job when they are uneducated.

[sblock=1]I know, it's a totally useless degree. He may as well just fold it up into a paper hat and ask the next customer in line if they want to make it a combo.[/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was thinking in the non-partisan political sense...




Yes, but then we are like Diogenes, in search of a non-partisan person to judge where "center" and the extremes lie.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> The question should be framed as "How many Republicans must propose (or vote for) racist policies before it can be labeled as racists, which would be answered with it's majority", not how many of it's politicians..




If you vote for the politicians, you vote for their stated policies.  And, since most of these candidates are or have been in office already, that means *someone* already voted for them...



> Unfortunately in American politics today, its seems that only the extreme left or the extreme right have a chance at winning Presidential elections.




Even with my giving Danny a hard time about "extreme", I actually agree with him.  Those who think Obama, and Clinton are "extreme" have lost some perspective on the range of possible policies, such that they have a misapprehension of where the "center" lies.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not in "first across the finish line" polling, he wouldn't necessarily.  Especially in a wide field, like we currently have in the primary race.  The "disapprove" numbers tell you how many folks will not vote for him, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a strong signal for a single other candidate.  The 43% who disapprove of Trump don't necessarily all go to Rubio, even in a straight head-to-head matchup.  Many, disillusioned, might not vote at all.  Right now, they'd go to up to a dozen other people still in the race, leaving Trump with the only strong signal, and thus the Primary win.
> 
> This is a large part of why early polling in large fields doesn't really tell you who would win.  There are too many variables in play.




I honestly think that at  least some of Trump's numbers are due to name recognition and that once we get closer to Iowa and the other primaries the rest of the field's numbers will change.  Honestly, the Republicans are currently lost in the woods when it comes to a unifying figure but that's pretty standard when you haven't been in the White House in the last eight years no matter which party you are.

On the Democratic side of things I think that all Bernie needs to do is show a strong second in New Hampshire and that should let him pick up steam along with money witch might be enough to let him hang in there  to get to Super Tuesday. But that all depends on Biden, who I'm fairly sure will announce in a few weeks since the Democrats first primary debate is Tuesday, October 13, 2015.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Even with my giving Danny a hard time about "extreme", I actually agree with him.  Those who think Obama, and Clinton are "extreme" have lost some perspective on the range of possible policies, such that they have a misapprehension of where the "center" lies.




From over here, they're both pretty right wing. They're both farther to the right than our Conservative Party. The whole US political spectrum is shifted towards right wing than most everywhere else in the Western world.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> From over here, they're both pretty right wing. They're both farther to the right than our Conservative Party. The whole US political spectrum is shifted towards right wing than most everywhere else in the Western world.




I was just going to type pretty much the same thing, though our own Conservative Party is taking more and more cues from their Republican counterparts, these days. Even used some of the same political advisors.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> From over here, they're both pretty right wing. They're both farther to the right than our Conservative Party. The whole US political spectrum is shifted towards right wing than most everywhere else in the Western world.




To be fair, plenty of people here in the U.S. recognize that Obama is actually right of center, regardless of all the socialist labels placed on him by republicans. Hell, the only socialist we have here is Bernie Sanders, and he is socialist-lite. Also, it should be noted consider that most people here in the U.S. don't really know what socialism is, and that republicans, in their extremism, consider anyone left of any of their positions to be a leftist, socialist, and/or communist. Any republican that disagrees with some policy being pushed by one of the party's more extreme members automatically gets labeled a RiNO.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 29, 2015)

RiNO?


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> RiNO?




"Republican in name only."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> "Republican in name only."



Conservapedia has a more detailed explanation.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> To be fair, plenty of people here in the U.S. recognize that Obama is actually right of center




What center? I'm pretty sure that supporting religious freedom, universal suffrage, more or less equal rights for men and women, and complete democratic control put every recent US president to the left of the average person in the world today. (The EU is less than 10% of the world's population; both India and China each count twice as much as the EU does on a by person count.) That's the most non-arbitrary center I know of, and it's hard to measure and doesn't seem all that interesting.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> Nate Silver puts the numbers at 2% for a Trump primary win.*




Nate Silver is a good statistician.  He is not the Oracle of Frelling Delphi.

That 2% thing is a meaningless statement.  No, really.  It doesn't have meaning.  And it saddens me that Silver, who should know better, would phrase it that way.

In fact, check it out - he comes by that number by just assuming Trump has a (apparently arbitrary) 50% chance of passing through a series of gauntlets that Silver, personally, decided are his gauntlets!  

_"So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you ge if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet."_

That is not good science, or statistics.  That, sir, is punditry.  And it was punditry from before the debates, at that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> What center? I'm pretty sure that supporting religious freedom, universal suffrage, more or less equal rights for men and women, and complete democratic control put every recent US president to the left of the average person in the world today. (The EU is less than 10% of the world's population; both India and China each count twice as much as the EU does on a by person count.) That's the most non-arbitrary center I know of, and it's hard to measure and doesn't seem all that interesting.



The fact that some overpopulated, backward countries pull far to the right on some topics does not shift the center in the U.S. If what you'd like to do is argue the average sentiment on various topics around the world, we can do that, but you just have to realize that's a different thing.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The fact that some backward countries pull far to the right on some topics does not shift the center. If what you'd like to do is argue the average sentiment on various topics, we can do that, but you just have to realize that's a different thing.




Depends on what you mean by a "center". Is it an empirical center - derived from observation of the actors involved? Or do you mean a theoretical center based on some criteria that will, ultimately, prove somewhat arbitrary?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Depends on what you mean by a "center". Is it an empirical center - derived from observation of the actors involved? Or do you mean a theoretical center based on some criteria that will, ultimately, prove somewhat arbitrary?



I made a slight edit to my post which you may want to look at.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The fact that some backward countries pull far to the right on some topics does not shift the center.




If you define the political center to be the political center of the world, then of course it does. How we pick the center is not a fact; it's a definition, and that claim may hold for some definitions but does not for others. What is your definition of the political center?


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I made a slight edit to my post which you may want to look at.




That makes it a bit hard to communicate. And I'm pretty sure that Obama is not right of center in the US, that more than 50% of the population is further left then he is.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> If you define the political center to be the political center of the world, then of course it does. How we pick the center is not a fact; it's a definition, and that claim may hold for some definitions but does not for others. What is your definition of the political center?




I think "Western World" is a reasonable comparison between similar democracies for the purposes of this discussion. Expanding it to the whole world is certainly an interesting discussion itself, but it doesn't move this one along in any way.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> That makes it a bit hard to communicate. And I'm pretty sure that Obama is not right of center in the US, that more than 50% of the population is further left then he is.



Okay, before we continue with this, what is it that you are referring to when you say "center?" Are you referring to a statistical average of how some people feel about a given topic? Do you mean that out of 100 people 50 would be for and 50 would be against some topic? is that what you are referring to as the "center?"


----------



## Morrus (Aug 29, 2015)

I am so sorry I mentioned the concept of a subjective centre. I made this thread the most tedious thing on the Internet. I apologise! It's now at a depth of tedium only matched in a particularly tedious layer of purgatory, and it's my fault.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I am so sorry I mentioned the concept of a subjective centre. I made this thread the most tedious thing on the Internet. I apologise! It's now at a depth of tedium only matched in a particularly tedious layer of purgatory, and it's my fault.




Go sit in the corner and think about what you did.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

There are two (and probably more) perfectly reasonable measures of "center".

One, is as prosfilaes says - choose some population, get some measure of the average position, and call that the center.

Another is to lay out the possible policies one can choose, in order of their degree of leaning to one side or the other, and call the middle of those the center.  

For an American, Obama is, all and all, probably pretty centrist.  This can be seen in the reception of several of his policies - roughly half of the folks out there think the Affordable Care act is a good thing, and half a bad thing.  He finally came down on the side of marriage equality - something that now the majority of Americans think is okay.  Is approval ratings tend to be in the high 40s, and his disapproval rating hasn't gotten above 50% this year.  So, about half the population liking how he's doing his job, and all.  This all suggests he's kinda middle of the road.

Interestingly - Obama's current approval rating right now is where Ronald Reagan's was at the same time in his Presidency.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I am so sorry I mentioned the concept of a subjective centre.




Eh.  Some folks were probably using it, and others not.  Which would have led to argument.  So, while it might be dry, it is at least not dry and nasty


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think "Western World" is a reasonable comparison between similar democracies for the purposes of this discussion.




I would say that the US, for the most part, is enough for the purposes of this discussion. Especially given that US politics can be defined as right and left, without _too_ much blurring of important distinctions, and we can reasonably agree where the lines are, but once you start mixing the US in with the EU... Obama, for example, has a stronger commitment to free speech then just about any other leader in the world; I am not aware of any other nation that has as broad a view on free speech as the US does. Seriously, no throwing Nazis in jail, criminalizing hate speech, our libel laws put the weight on the plaintiff, etc. Does that push him to the left?


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Conservapedia has a more detailed explanation.




That description reinforces why I don't reference Conservapedia


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> That description reinforces why I don't reference Conservapedia


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 30, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> View attachment 70004




Shake it off 

Try looking up "evolution" as an example of why I don't bother with that site.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 30, 2015)

Wow.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 30, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> I would say that the US, for the most part, is enough for the purposes of this discussion.




I'll leave quietly, then.


----------



## Deathstrike (Aug 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> This is the internet age.  The idea that one needs local, printed advertising is, at this point, a bit quaint.
> 
> Put his name into Google, and after a couple news items about him, the top two hits are the radio stations website with links to his shows, and another to a page with his podcasts.  A few down, and you find his stuff is available on iTunes. Being on AM radio no longer means you are only heard on local AM radio, and going on with him then need not indicate a "streching" on anyone's part.
> 
> ...



I wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned this comic!  Trump was featured CONSTANTLY. I may be mistaken,  but I believe that in one story arc, Trump had his brain surgically implanted in a cat.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Aug 30, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> That description reinforces why I don't reference Conservapedia



Oh, I know Conservapedia is full of completely insane conservative propaganda. It's what makes the site such a hilarious site. It's kind of like reading the Onion, but Conservapedia is serious.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> If you vote for the politicians, you vote for their stated policies.  And, since most of these candidates are or have been in office already, that means *someone* already voted for them...




Since I didn't vote for them, I hadn't voted for their stated policies either, hence their existence as Republican politicians in the first place, doesn't apply to me. I haven't voted since the start of Obama's first Presidential election, otherwise have only voted in local referendums and such. As stated, none of the current Republican candidates were anyone I voted for, and haven't voted congressional elections ever. I'm a reluctant participant to politics at any time, and loyal to no party. I'm a poor target as representing any political party, let alone the GOP, in this discussion.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 30, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Since I didn't vote for them, I hadn't voted for their stated policies either, hence their existence as Republican politicians in the first place, doesn't apply to me. I haven't voted since the start of Obama's first Presidential election, otherwise have only voted in local referendums and such. As stated, none of the current Republican candidates were anyone I voted for, and haven't voted congressional elections ever. I'm a reluctant participant to politics at any time, and loyal to no party. I'm a poor target as representing any political party, let alone the GOP, in this discussion.




Except that "you" as an individual are not being targeted.  A point is simply being made that casting a vote for a candidate is, in form as well as substance, saying "I approve of his/her policies and stated goals."  Now, if you personally don't vote for those candidates, then you have excluded yourself from the group being mentioned (i.e. Republicans).  However, in any discussion of who among a party's members supports the opinions of a given candidate, those who cast votes for those candidates are extremely relevant.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 30, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Except that "you" as an individual are not being targeted.




Except that the post I was responding specifically was quoting my own post and suggesting that possessing some Republican sympathies implies that "someone" including myself needs to hold some responsibility for these Republican candidates being in office in the first place. Had it not been my post that was quoted, I would not consider somehow applying to me as a part of that whole.

Pointing out that post I responded, again for clarification...



Umbran said:


> If you vote for the politicians, you vote for their stated policies.  And, since most of these candidates are or have been in office already, that means *someone* already voted for them.




I don't disagree that someone certainly voted them into office, but this shouldn't label all members of a specific party as also being their supporters somehow by default. Considering that the states where the Republican candidates originate, aren't from my state, meaning there was no legal way for me to have a vote connected to any of them, how does having them elected by somebody imply that all Republicans share their views?

In the posts pointing to the polling of Republican trends, even if heavily in favor of Trump (for example), it wasn't 100% in his favor, which meant that some elements of the GOP do not favor Trump. Though barely Republican, I count myself as not a Trump fan, nor a fan of any of the current candidates. So even admitting to some Republican leanings in my political views, doesn't and shouldn't automatically label me as "favorable to racist policies." That's all I'm stating.

It's a _post hoc ergo proptor hoc_ fallacy to think so.

As the son of an immigrant, myself, the current anti-immigrant policies by the candidates are very much counter to my views. On many Republican policies, I'm not in agreement, which definitely makes me an outlier among Republicans, so I cannot accept that being a member of a party implies agreement with all/most of its policies - and likely also applies to other members of various political parties. I cannot be the only exception. There are no absolutes among all members of any political party.

You say, this discussion isn't about "me", rather perceptions of a party professes. If I'm a member of that party, even an extreme minority segment of that party, how can I separate myself from that discussion that is applying labels to the party as a whole.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'll leave quietly, then.




I don't get it; why is it okay to exclude the non-Western World but not okay to look at the US as the US? I'm not telling anyone to leave, but I don't think it reasonable to boil down American politics to everyone is right of center just because Europe does it that way.

Both Marcus Aurelius and Caligula were far right-wing tyrants by modern standards, but there is no hope of understanding the history of the Roman Empire if you let that get in your way.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 30, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> I don't get it; why is it okay to exclude the non-Western World but not okay to look at the US as the US? I'm not telling anyone to leave, but I don't think it reasonable to boil down American politics to everyone is right of center just because Europe does it that way.
> 
> Both Marcus Aurelius and Caligula were far right-wing tyrants by modern standards, but there is no hope of understanding the history of the Roman Empire if you let that get in your way.




Because Europeans are participating in this conversation, while Marcus Aurelius and Caligula are - to my knowledge - not. It's reasonable to include the viewpoints of those present when discussing a topic.

If you're not personally interested in other perspectives, that's fine - you can simply ignore those posts.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2015)

Deathstrike said:


> I wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned this comic!  Trump was featured CONSTANTLY. I may be mistaken,  but I believe that in one story arc, Trump had his brain surgically implanted in a cat.




You speak in the past tense.  You may not be aware - Berkeley Breathed is writing Bloom County again.  That comic I posted is from last weekend!

https://www.facebook.com/berkeleybreathed?ref=profile


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I don't disagree that someone certainly voted them into office, but this shouldn't label all members of a specific party as also being their supporters somehow by default.




It should if those people share funding and campaign machinery.  Rare indeed is the candidate who says, "I'm a member of Party X, but I get *nothing* from being part of the party!"

The whole point of having a "party" is to work as a group, cooperate, and have a sort of political "brand".  They are *choosing* to associate with that brand, and what it implies.  When you do that, you don't get to take only the good bits.  

And you might want to check on specific voting records - while they may have not run campaigns putting emphasis on some of the uglier bits, each party does tend to vote as a block.  On the federal level, voting against party lines is pretty rare these days.  I can't speak to what happens on your state level, but I think you actually have to go look to be sure.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It should if those people share funding and campaign machinery.  Rare indeed is the candidate who says, "I'm a member of Party X, but I get *nothing* from being part of the party!"




Doesn't any candidate require some level of funding acquired on their own before one is able to gain funding from the party at large? I'll admit that they share "machinery", but not necessarily the same funding sources.



Umbran said:


> The whole point of having a "party" is to work as a group, cooperate, and have a sort of political "brand".  They are *choosing* to associate with that brand, and what it implies.  When you do that, you don't get to take only the good bits.




If there were one agreed implication of the "brand" there'd only be one candidate from each party. So obviously not everyone is in perfect sync with all other party members. There would be no labels within a party. How could there be centrist, conservative, liberal members within the same party if being "Repubican" only means one set of goals? I completely disagree with your assessment. I don't think this is true for any political party. There is always variances in every ideology. For myself, for example, I agree with party convictions to minimize government involvement with small business, I believe in smaller government, and to a large degree to Republican foreign policy and commitments to the military, beyond that on most other Republican concerns, I generally oppose or at least have strong feelings that don't necessarily coincide with most of the party - this is the extent of my party association, yet I still call myself Republican. There certainly is a loyal block within the party, that always vote along party lines, no matter what, but this doesn't describe every member of that party.



Umbran said:


> And you might want to check on specific voting records - while they may have not run campaigns putting emphasis on some of the uglier bits, each party does tend to vote as a block.  On the federal level, voting against party lines is pretty rare these days.  I can't speak to what happens on your state level, but I think you actually have to go look to be sure.




I'll vote in a primary election with the goal of attempting to gain the party nomination for a particular candidate I feel most closely fits my goals. When that candidate loses to another member of the party, if I feel strongly against their agenda, I won't vote in the "block" just to pick a Republican over a Democrat, nor just to vote within party lines. If I don't agree with a particular party nominee, I don't vote for that person at all. I'd rather not vote than to defy my own convictions. And I have voted against party lines in one past election as well. It may be rare, but I'm one of those practitioners willing to defy party lines. Unless one of the current Republican candidates clarifies or does a flip-flop on their racial perspectives before the party nomination and change my mind, I don't plan to vote in the current Presidential elections, as none fit my agenda. Besides, how do you know that voting against party lines is rare these days? Are you familiar with the practices of every or even most voters? Clearly not. You're making an assumption that cannot be proven. Polls can suggest trends, but polls cannot prove anything.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 30, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Besides, how do you know that voting against party lines is rare these days? Are you familiar with the practices of every or even most voters? Clearly not. You're making an assumption that cannot be proven. Polls can suggest trends, but polls cannot prove anything.



You mean voters who vote against party line? Judging form the candidates that do get the nominations within the Republican party, I'd say that a majority of voters follow the party line or turn a blind eye to the the parts they do not like. 

On a unrelated note, I remember someone saying that Chris Christie was the centrist among Repuplican presidential candiates. Well, he needs attention and wants votes from the more radical Republican base, so he wants to treat immigrants like Fedex packages instead of human beings. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/politics/chris-christie-fedex-packages/index.html


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 30, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> The question should be framed as "How many Republicans must propose (or vote for) racist policies before it can be labeled as racists, which would be answered with it's majority", not how many of it's politicians, since the current batch of Presidential candidates only seems to represent the extreme right of the party (whom I consider a minority and not in anyway representative of my Republican ideals, so not worth being applicable to labels). The opinions of a few bad apples should'nt have the power to give the entirety of its group with any kind of label, especially when not representing its majority.



What does it say about a party of the only way to be a viable candiate is to appeal to the extremist part of you party and the front runner is the most racits of them all? And it isn't a local election*. It is a national election where you'd think centrist might be more numerous than the radial and racist elements in the party. But right now "centrists" like Chris Christie say immigrants must be tracked like Fedex packages, Bush talks about "anchor babies" and Scott Walker talks about building a wall between... Canada and the US. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ker-canada-border-wall-immigration-terrorists

To me it says the influence of the radicals and racists is way more important than a lot of Republicans are willing to face. I think a lot of it has to egocentricity. If you're white and have some money, you do not care about social programs, minority issues and protecting the environment just seems to raise the cost of stuff. Low taxes, guns, religion might just be what a lot of Republicans care about. Gay rights? Women's rights? Immigrantion? The environment? Meh. It is selfish, not racist, but this selfishness might lead to turning a blind eye to racism and racist found within the party. But if non-racist people tolerate racist people within a political party and that influences policies, don't they share responsability in the fact that racist policies are being proposed and implimented?


*Althought, the way primaries are held in each states intead of universal sufferage across the country does create a distortion.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Besides, how do you know that voting against party lines is rare these days?




I was talking about the legislators voting the party line, not the electorate.

The idea that your legislator is somehow independent of the negative aspects of their party, untouched or clean, can be checked by looking at their voting records.  If  your legislator pretty much always votes the party line, then he or she is apt to be supporting some of the problematic legislation.

The votes cast by members of legislatures are a matter of public record.  And there are folks who watch the data.

For example, on the Federal level, both parties typically vote the party line.  As in, generally, each legislator votes with the rest of his or her party over 90% of the time:

https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/house/republican
https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/house/democrat

https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/republican
https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/democrat

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-sets-record-for-voting-along-party-lines-20140203

http://media.cq.com/votestudies/


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 30, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You mean voters who vote against party line? Judging form the candidates that do get the nominations within the Republican party, I'd say that a majority of voters follow the party line or turn a blind eye to the the parts they do not like.




That may be true, I don't know, I don't have a pulse on the Republican party, that said, what a given majority of anything does or does not do shouldn't mean to apply to the party as a whole, that's been my only point in every post I've made in this thread. I am consciously not a member of that majority.



goldomark said:


> On a unrelated note, I remember someone saying that Chris Christie was the centrist among Repuplican presidential candiates. Well, he needs attention and wants votes from the more radical Republican base, so he wants to treat immigrants like Fedex packages instead of human beings. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/politics/chris-christie-fedex-packages/index.html




Well packages don't make individual decisions and transport themselves where ever they want, unlike the freedom of being human, so what works for Fedex can't necessarily be applicable to tracking people. That said, the private sector often has solutions to problems that can be applied to governmental issues. Is it dehumanizing to compare tracking people to tracking packages? Probably, but that doesn't mean those ideas that work in tracking packages, might not be useful in tracking temporary Visa based immigrants. So as a possible means of solving the tracking of Visa holders, I am not opposed to taking a look at Fedex, nor any private sector solution. Regarding Christie's veto on an ID based checks as a means of gun control, I disagree, and am perfectly fine with better ways to identify gun owners, nor agree with his position on Abortion, and many other issues. In weighing his pro and cons, I can agree to some of his platform issues, but probably not most of them, thus I have too many cons with Christie to consider him my candidate.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I was talking about the legislators voting the party line, not the electorate.




Well I wasn't talking about the votes by legislators, so we're talking around each other about completely different points. I'm not a legislator, so I cannot speak on their decisions.

As an ardent opponent to the electoral college, I'd rather not my legislators voting record mean so much, rather only be concerned with my voting record only.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Because Europeans are participating in this conversation, while Marcus Aurelius and Caligula are - to my knowledge - not. It's reasonable to include the viewpoints of those present when discussing a topic.




And you're saying there are no Chinese or Indians? I certainly don't know that, and would welcome their discussions.

The point about Marcus Aurelius is that when looking at the Roman Empire, judging it by the standards of Europe teaches you little to nothing about the Roman Empire. There are many people of all places who study the Roman Empire, but they learn not to simply judge it by the standards of modern day.



> If you're not personally interested in other perspectives, that's fine - you can simply ignore those posts.




The discussion was about where the center was, when unspecified. I don't see any reason to ignore posts from Europeans willing to talk about the US as the US, or explicitly taking about the US from a European perspective, and I don't see any way to deal with people who use an unspecified center askew from the US; even if I make the unjustified assumption that all Europeans will use such a center, that doesn't help me with people who don't list their location.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 31, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> As an ardent opponent to the electoral college, I'd rather not my legislators voting record mean so much, rather only be concerned with my voting record only.




The votes of legislators illustrates the policies they will support, and when the legislators of one party vote one way on an issue it shows a party-wide support for that position.  Voting for legislators who have voted for racist or oppressive policies either means support of those policies by supporting the legislators who voted for them, or turning a blind eye to those votes (perhaps willingly doing so).  I don't see how the electoral college fits into that, especially when (to the best of my knowledge) the electoral college only matters when it comes to the final election and not to the nomination of presidential candidates or the selection process in party primaries.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 31, 2015)

Well, since I've stated multiple times in this thread, that I only vote during the main elections, never during primaries. Therefore the electoral college's existence becomes an unnecessary step between my vote and a candidate's winning or loosing - it means everything. I otherwise only vote during local elections on local issues. I've never voted during legislator elections


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 31, 2015)

Here's my problem with that:


> “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
> 
> ― John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867




(See also Burke's similar aphorism.)

You say you're a member of a political party and only vote in the local elections.  Meanwhile, it is the state and national legislators who propose and pass the most impactful laws.  

But by opting out of the broader political process- a process you say elects people you don't like- you're complicit in letting those officials to gain power.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 31, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Well, since I've stated multiple times in this thread, that I only vote during the main elections, never during primaries. Therefore the electoral college's existence becomes an unnecessary step between my vote and a candidate's winning or loosing - it means everything. I otherwise only vote during local elections on local issues. I've never voted during legislator elections




That's an interesting voting philosophy.  I don't see the logic in it, since legislators are the ones who enact the most significant changes outside of those resulting from Supreme Court decisions, but that's just me.  I mean, the amount of power presidents have is sort of laughable without a legislative body that supports them.  A president can't make law, a president can't approve budgets, a president can't prevent laws from being made if the legislator can override the veto, and a president can't amend the constitution, but a legislative body can.  The president's power to appoint personnel (such as judges) can also be held up by legislators. The legislature could even add more justices to the Supreme Court to swing its political allegiances.

By contrast, a president can use the bully pulpit, can direct enforcement or non-enforcement of laws, and can use the power gained under the War Powers Act/War Powers Resolution to start unwanted conflicts (remember that only the legislature can actually declare war).  Now don't get me wrong, the power of the office of the president has been expanding over time.  However, when it comes to elected officials the legislators as a group can render a president largely impotent.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 31, 2015)

> However, when it comes to elected officials the legislators as a group can render a president largely impotent.




As we have seen.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 31, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> That may be true, I don't know, I don't have a pulse on the Republican party, that said, what a given majority of anything does or does not do shouldn't mean to apply to the party as a whole, that's been my only point in every post I've made in this thread. I am consciously not a member of that majority.



But why? If a majority of people in a party vote for politicians who propose to enact racist policies, an often do, why shouldn't the party be considered racist? What do you think should be required for a political party to be considered racist?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 31, 2015)

You say its a majority, I say, not only isn't it the majority (rather a vocal minority, including the current Republican candidates), but you cannot prove it is the majority. I haven't met a Republican, including politicians, but mostly normal voters that even seem racist. While I don't attend politcal rallies, in all social functions politics is often discussed and racist views are never accidentally/purposefully exposed. You'd think if it were the majority, I would run into somebody that professed a racist view, yet I haven't. I cannot believe that I happen to live in a place where only the nonracist Republican minority exist, which makes me belief your assumption to be wrong. Where is this racist majority? They must be hiding, or the more likely situation is that they are actually a minority. 

I don't hang around the Christian Right wing of the party, maybe its they who are racist? I do know that there is a large block of religious right in the US military that are openly against non-Christian faiths which I deem highly prejudicial, but I don't know about widespread acts of racism (not that they don't exist), yet I don't know if they are also Republicans or not. The only openly racist person I know is a rather committed Democrat, which makes me think that racism isn't necessarily politically motivated, nor attached to a particular American political party. I imagine the American Nazi party is racist, and whichever party, members of the KKK attach themselves. David Duke certainly is a racist Repubican and a politician, but he seems a rarity in the party. Most Republicans I know treat Duke as an insult to the party. And as stated, most Republican conversations I've been involved speaks negatively regarding Trump, but not necessarily only for his racist views, but rather the bulk of his agenda.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 31, 2015)

The vote speaks for itself, in a way.  While the majority of members may not be bigoted/uninformed*, the GOP is increasingly electing bigoted/uninformed politicians.  This happens only a couple of ways- either the majority of the party are bigoted/uninformed, or a large enough minority of the party is bigoted/uninformed and is being aided to ascendency by enough of the rest of the ACTUAL membership majority not voting.

The end result is the same: bigoted/uninformed GOP politicians are receiving a majority of GOP votes cast.  The GOP's "brand identity" is becoming tarnished in the minds of those targeted by those politicians, and in the minds of those sympathetic to the issues the targeted people face.

And like the state of affairs that created the problem has few root causes, the solutions are equally few: the non-bigoted majority must exercise its political rhetoric and muscle within the party, or they must break away from what the GOP has become and create a new party free of such influences.  Each path has its own benefits and hazards.



> Most Republicans I know treat Duke as an insult to the party.



Then, as pointed out in articles like this one, it is time for you and those you know to become more vocal and/or active.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-gop-really-is-becoming-the-racist-party.html

While The Donald has been critical of Duke in the past, his CURRENT response to obvious reported support from Duke and his ilk has been mild.  For whatever reason, instead of forceful repudiation, support of the racist element within the GOP is welcomed with the promise to do so "if it will make (people) feel better."

At the very least, it is having your cake and eating it.  He can claim he is still against Duke's philosophies while still receiving his support.

And he isn't the only GOP candidate playing that game.

Look at John McCain for an example of why this matters.  For DECADES, he vocally opposed and warmed against the GOP becoming too entangled with the religious right.  He even got in verbal sparring matches with several of the big name religious leaders, like Pat Robertson.  But his words had little effect- the GOP liked the political victories close relationships with that branch of conservatism brought and cultivated a closer relationship.

But when McCain's final presidential run was floundering and he was last in the polls and fundraising, how did he right his sinking ship?  He groveled at the feet of the religious right, and even did appearances on shows like the 700 Club to boost his fundraising.

And that worked- money rolled in and he got the nomination.

Back to 2015: GOP presidential hopefuls are being soft with their responses to the racist element within the party.  Are there enough white supremacists to give a candidate a McCain-esque boost?  I don't think so; I hope not.

But unless the party gets serious about responding to those among them who are bigoted, that number is likely to grow.  At the very least, it will increase the "brown flight" away from the GOP at a time when America's demographics are becoming less Caucasian every year.






* I say bigoted/uninformed to allow for the possibility that the person in question may not realize the bigotry inherent in particular language or legislation


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 31, 2015)

I would believe that a large enough minority of racist Republicans may exist that is getting these racist politicians into office, and that consequently the Republican majority is getting disillusioned by this loud minority, I know that I'm disillusioned regarding the party (or rather politics in general).

Edit: additionally a lot of racist Republican sentiment points to Trump, and he hasn't been elected to anything. Though he may have supporters, nobody has voted for Trump (yet) regarding anything.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I would believe that a large enough minority of racist Republicans may exist that is getting these racist politicians into office, and that consequently the Republican majority is getting disillusioned by this loud minority, I know that I'm disillusioned regarding the party (or rather politics in general).




Some disillusionment is understandable. But disengagement is no remedy, it is surrender. Engagement is the process that has the potential to effect changes, though the process may be long and slow. If there is a Nixonian "silent majority" lurking out there, it needs to speak up or have to accept the opprobrium heaped in it.


----------



## nightwind1 (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I would believe that a large enough minority of racist Republicans may exist that is getting these racist politicians into office, and that consequently the Republican majority is getting disillusioned by this loud minority, I know that I'm disillusioned regarding the party (or rather politics in general).
> 
> Edit: additionally a lot of racist Republican sentiment points to Trump, and he hasn't been elected to anything. Though he may have supporters, nobody has voted for Trump (yet) regarding anything.



The latest Quinnipiac Poll has Trump at 28% among registered Republicans. The next highest is Ben Carson at 12%. 

I think that says a LOT about the Republican party in general.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 1, 2015)

I think it says a lot about that 28%, indeed a large minority. Still a minority.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> I think it says a lot about that 28%, indeed a large minority. Still a minority.



Here is a site that is averaging together the Quinnapac, Fox & CNN polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

If you look, 4 of the top 5 GOP candidates are considered "fringe" or anti-establishment as compared to the mainstream of the GOP, and they are currently commanding 50.7% of the vote.  

A small majority, but a majority.

Add in Paul and Huckabee, and the "outsiders" command 58% of the GOP electorate.

IOW, the mainstream Republicans are currently lagging behind their- I'll say it- less electable opponents.  It IS early yet, but in think it is cause for concern.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 1, 2015)

You have the right to be born, and be immediately deported.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You have the right to be born, and be immediately deported.




Here is the exact quote from the New Yorker:



> “We must vigilantly safeguard the life of the unborn, and, as soon it is no longer unborn, make sure that it leaves and takes its illegal parents with it.”




So completely bizarre.  I am at a loss to comprehend this view.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 2, 2015)

That article is from their resident satirist.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 2, 2015)

Poe's law in action.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2015)

Yah.  You're not the first folks to be trolled by Borowitz.  He's good like that.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 24, 2015)

shintashi said:


> I was in an AD&D game a couple months ago with a group of older people (45-60) and there were 2 slaves being played as NPCs, being controlled by the DM, but owned by the other Player Characters. There was a Paladin in their group. When I showed up, with my Lawful Good character who had the "Free Spirit" character trait (basically the anti slavery super power) my character was shocked that Good aligned characters, including a Paladin, would think this was kosher. Now, stepping outside of the Game, we get to the meat of it.
> 
> The Players thought it was perfectly natural to have slaves, if the slaves were under conditions they thought were good. Note that I've been rewatching Game of Thrones recently, and the character "Reek" is a slave who has been brain washed into loving the man who tortured him and mutilated his body.
> 
> ...




Well the "freedom" angle is actually more of a Chaotic Good trope than it is a Lawful Good one. 

Consider the Lawful Good character living in a society, in which slavery is the law of the land. Rome had laws that codified the rights of slaves and the duties of slave owners, for example. A person could fall into slavery for a variety of reasons; birth into the class, debt, criminality, captured during military action, etc.. Now consider that Lawful Good person in context. He stands for Law, not law, but in many cases these can be considered synonymous. There are many others, in his society, who are neither Good nor follow Law. What to do, when there are so many who might be mistreated? One thing would be to buy as many slaves as he could afford to support, add them to his household, and then treat them like valued employees or even family. In ancient Rome this was the status of many slaves.


----------



## prosfilaes (Sep 24, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Well the "freedom" angle is actually more of a Chaotic Good trope than it is a Lawful Good one.




D&D 3 SRD:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

I have a hard time giving any meaning to "dignity" and "oppressing" if they don't include "anti-slavery" and "pro-slavery". "Freedom" as in e.g. how tightly you're confined to your social roles is one thing, and I'm sure that CG is more anti-slavery, but I don't believe that paladins should be supporting slavery, at least not IMO or in D&D 3 RAW.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 24, 2015)

prosfilaes said:


> D&D 3 SRD:
> 
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> ...




I would say that Good dictates the basic beliefs, while Law/Chaos dictates the methodology.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 25, 2015)

Where this would go for a true LG would be behavior compelled for the common good.  For example, compulsory military service, or compulsory civic service.  Or behavior compelled by an ideal.

Is Cooper (the engineer/farmer) in Interstellar a slave?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 5, 2015)

I think I may have to change the title of this thread to " Well, what's wrong with immigrant workers?"



> The Atlantic slave trade between the 1500s and the 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 15, 2015)

Huckabee demonstrates again his tenuous grasp on settled Constitutional law and the nature & inner workings of our penal system.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/15/3712684/mike-huckabee-slavery/

Interestingly, though, it DOES highlight a distinction between our actual secular Constitution and our nation's supposed Judeo-Christian roots.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 15, 2015)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord." Colossians 3:22


----------



## Orius (Oct 16, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Interestingly, though, it DOES highlight a distinction between our actual secular Constitution and our nation's supposed Judeo-Christian roots.




Our legal system is based far more on English Common Law than anything in the Bible.  And like many Western legal systems, that was based on Roman laws, not the Bible.  As a lawyer, you're probably more aware of the specifics involved than I am.

Besides, Huckabee's a lousy Christian.  Debt slavery goes against the teachings of Jesus, and even the Old Testament takes a dim view of debt exploitation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 16, 2015)

Yup.

I bet he doesn't realize how tone deaf he really sounds. Not even close.


----------

