What, pray tell, do you want to do about the ignorance of the electorate?
Comes with democracy.
but only because of those over 65. Obama won the demographic all the way up to 45. Romney won the next set (up to 65) by a small amount, then those over 65 by an enormous amount. Meaning that if this exact election happened in 12 or 16 years, Romney might have pulled a Dukakis or worse
Please... The Democrats were "fatally flawed" and "doomed" after 94'. We've heard this before, about both parties. Hooray for knee jerk reactions and myopic viewpoints.
There have been extended periods throughout American history where one party dominated while another floundered, yet within our system the down and out party always found a way, eventually, to claw its way back to the top.
There is nothing on the horizon I see that would change this trend short of the emergence of a viable 3rd party. Repubs have too much money and power to just fade away without somebody else filling the vacuum. This country, despite its past few elections, is still a slightly right of center nation politically. While it may take more than a cycle or two, possibly more, I certainly expect Repubs to make their way back to the top and we'll be listening to Darrin/Yoni etc make these same idiotic threads about dems.
All that said, I do agree with the OP on several of his points, chiefly the negative impact of social/religious conservatives.
All the conservative pundits are saying they need to educate liberals and others who don't follow their values. They blame their failure on everything but themselves.
You can't be that religious and NOT have it affect your governance.
You have more faith in Ron Paul than I would put in him.
Is there an unedited version?
To be honest, I didn't put a whole lot of effort into it. I was quite lazy, and just took the first hit that looked to answer the question, mostly because I don't really care too much, other than to irritate Paulbots, which I accomplished.
Don't ask me to prove a negative.
If you think the Democrats live in an information bubble of some sort that doesn't let information in, and don't occasionally change their minds when given good reasons to, feel free to show me how.
If you want to do that, you will have to define "quasi-socialism", and then start showing general thoughts from prominent Democrats along those lines.
I have accused you of lazy cynicism. All I need for that criticism to stick is for you to not bother backing up your case. Personally, I would like to be wrong about that. I am wrong occasionally. Up to you man.
Another huge Repug fault, not GAF about Human-Americans
Florida’s GOP Secretary Of State Has No Regrets, Won’t Say He’s Sorry For Massive Voting Lines
DETZNER: Well, let me point out that, while the days were cut, the number of hours were not. We still maintained 96 hours of voting, and it created greater flexibility for the supervisors. Uh, for the first time ever voters could vote during the day for 12 hours during the day, and I can tell you I heard feedback from voters going into election day that they liked the opportunity to vote either in the morning before work or after work. And frankly, I think the turnout is a good representation of the fact that people liked the voting hours and the flexibility that the supervisors had.
There is something truly absurd about Detzner’s claim that the fact that people did not decide to give up their most fundamental right somehow reflects their satisfaction with a massive failure of governance. It should go without saying that when someone has to wait six hours to cast a ballot, their government failed them, and no amount of spin can defend a decision not to make more opportunities to vote available. As Florida’s former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist said last Sunday, Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) refusal to extend early voting is “unconscionable” and “the only thing that makes any sense as to why this is happening and being done is voter suppression.”
Crist is almost undoubtedly correct. The Obama campaign made early voting a key prong of their turnout strategy, and many low-income voters who tend to vote Democratic are disenfranchised without early voting because they lack the job flexibility to cast a ballot on election day.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-voting-lines/
Who expects anything better from a Repug state governed by a corporate criminal who stole $Bs from Medicare/Medicaid?
It sounds just like the twoofers, "if they just watched ma yootoobs, they would realize how right I am".
It was the over 40 and i would say that this election went a long way in demonstrating how ineffective that demographic is.
The Democrats changed their tune after losing their congressional seats in 94. Clinton especially as he changed his tenor and started cooperating with GOP congressmen. It's a big reason why he won in 96.
If the GOP maintains the status quo then they are ed. This is doubly so in the party of middle-aged white men where 'winning isn't everything; it's the only thing.'
Obama could have pitched a fifty state shutout if only black people could vote. Fortunately, his campaign was grounded in reality.
More old Republicans die each year. Thus a big portion of the Republican population is slowly dying. haha
Yes you can... it's called leaving social issues to the states instead of the federal gub'mint rushing in to save the day...
civil rights apply to all Human-Americans, "Interstate Civil Rights", absolutely shouldn't be left to (red) states, and certainly not compromised/elected (red state supreme court) judges intimidated by ignorant, uneducated, low-wage, text-worshipping bubbas.
I was saying that once you start taking things "on faith" it f***s with your ability to figure out what is real and what is not. That kind of mental crippling has got to have SOME effect, I would think.
RG points out Republican confirmation bias by posting a cartoon that confirms this belief.
Ironic isn't it?
I would point out though, that quite a few outside observers have marveled at the rights ability to delude itself during this cycle, and have pointed this out as well.
At what point, when you get more than a few smart people telling you something, do you start to ask yourself if they have a point?
Given I am asking this from the side of the house that denies both evolution, physics, and AGW.
Case in point, is that the Republican party chooses to put, ON THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE, Paul Braun. "evolution is a lie from the pit of "
It is ONE thing to elect these kinds of people, but to put them on the committee that votes on science funding??? really???
You know... you'd have to be willing to concede that this dynamic works both ways (i.e. that a-religious folks let said perspective/stance affect their governance as well). Not that I expect you to agree with that observation. meh.
just like my a-belief in Santa affects the same said governance.
You're a ing idiot.
Yeah, it IS ironic that you can't make your case without resorting to the same tactics you're complaining about...
Sure, I would agree.
One would then have to figure out if, on balance, one's beliefs has an overall net positive or negative effect.
That, is probably where we would part ways.
Do you think that an atheist would make a good/bad president? If so, what basis would you have for that?
Spoken like a true idiot.
What tactics I am complaining about again?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote