I'm confused about the American Republican party

[kandrathe]

Are you saying this polling organisation is a biased one? To me it seems they took a pretty large group of republican voters (the party we are discussing in this thread).

It really depends on their methodology. Going to the nearby clan rally and tractor pull would skew the results. I'm worried about a representative sample. Then, if there is evidence of racism, I'd want show that it correlates to "being republican" rather than "being white in Alabama". What the poller has done is toss in an incendiary question, and left the surrounding demographic analysis out resulting in what might be an aberration to this sample, or general opinion of "white people in Alabama".

Is PPP biased? You tell me. I researched them. Did you?

Well I think many of us already suggested here that the religious conservative voters base in the US is not known for its intelligence.
But indeed this poll was conducted only using republican respondents...but again, that is why i posted the link.

And, I would reply that you are exposing yourself to be as much of a bigot as they are. You want to use this poll to paint a picture, whereas the reality is that there are idiots, and savants throughout our culture, some are democrats, and some are republicans. Some are educated, and some are not. There is more of a correlation between level of education, and acting intelligently, or accepting the theory of evolution for that matter. So, the issue is not inherent stupidity, merely a lack of education.

I would add that for both parties, the uneducated voters tend to act, and vote selfishly. But, that is their right. We don't like it, but that's democracy.

Also, as an afterthought. You also seem to be indicating that people who believe in God are doing so from a position of ignorance. Smart people, like you, are atheists. Smart people, like you, accept the theory of evolution. Smart people, like you, lean to the left politically. Republicans are not like you, so they must be stupid. However, many prominent intelligent people, such as our democrat president are professed believers in God. Again, you are taking common attributes, such as religiosity, or poorly educated, and creating a caricature of a republican. Whereas to do the same thing for poor southern black Baptists would be reprehensible.

[FireIceTalon]

accepting the FACT of evolution for that matter. So, the issue is not inherent stupidity, merely a lack of education.

I would add that for both parties, the uneducated voters tend to act, and vote selfishly. But, that is their right. We don't like it, but that's democracy.

Corrected that first part for you But I tend to agree that ignorance is a bigger problem then stupidity. I dont think anyone is inherently born stupid, but ignorance can and DOES breed stupidity, which is pretty much the same thing as willful ignorance. Being ignorant is one thing, for no individual has absolute knowledge obviously, but willful ignorance is a straight up crime in my book.

For the second part, it is democracy only in the context of the current system we have, but certainly not democracy in the overall big picture of things since our system is one based on class antagonisms. 'Bourgeois' Democracy (what we have) and Democracy as most people think of it are two very different things. The two party system is merely a tool designed to give us the illusion that we are democratic, but as long as there is a ruling class that controls and consists of both parties, it is anything but. Having any sort of central State authority in general, that has a monopoly of power and violence, means there is democracy for only a certain segment of society. How much power the State has of course, is another question. As far as im concerned, we are just a small step away from becoming Nazi Germany. Alot of the same principles they had are the ones we have and value today, even if less extreme (strong patriotism, reactionary nationalism during times of crisis, ethnocentrism, anti-intellectualism, preservation of traditions, obsession with religion, etc all based on war-driven economics combined with anti-progressive or anti-socialist ideology).

[DeeBye]

There still seems to be a lot of confusion here about American politics. This video should help to clear things up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whFBCIzwxp8

That was amazing. If there is one post in this thread that needs to be clicked on, it is this one.

I lost it when Ron Paul did a slow clap. Thank you Nystul!

[eppie]

It really depends on their methodology. Going to the nearby clan rally and tractor pull would skew the results. I'm worried about a representative sample. Then, if there is evidence of racism, I'd want show that it correlates to "being republican" rather than "being white in Alabama". What the poller has done is toss in an incendiary question, and left the surrounding demographic analysis out resulting in what might be an aberration to this sample, or general opinion of "white people in Alabama".

Is PPP biased? You tell me. I researched them. Did you?

What do you think? That in my spare time my hobby is to research american polling agencies that I have never heard of before?
If you have a good reason to believe this poll is enormous bogus, please tell us this. I think everybody is aware of te issues with polling (number of respondents, how to choose respondents etc.) but I can't seem to find any indication that this particular poll was conducted in a wrong way.
So did the results surprise you a lot? And is that the reason why you think this poll is wrong?

And, I would reply that you are exposing yourself to be as much of a bigot as they are. You want to use this poll to paint a picture, whereas the reality is that there are idiots, and savants throughout our culture, some are democrats, and some are republicans.

The picture I want to paint using this poll is that in the southern US states 30 % of republicans think interreacial marriage should be forbidden. And seeing you respond with so much enthousiasm I bet you thnk this is not the case. Again, I don't know the details from this poll but I hae not yet had a reason to believe it is not correct. So if you have info that says otherwise please share it.

I would add that for both parties, the uneducated voters tend to act, and vote selfishly. But, that is their right. We don't like it, but that's democracy.

And here I think you are wrong, i don't tink there is a correlation between education and selfish voting. Also believing in evolution or not has not got anything to do with being selfish.

Also, as an afterthought. You also seem to be indicating that people who believe in God are doing so from a position of ignorance.

Well in 95% of the cases this is true. Most people with higher scientific education are atheist....not all, not even 95 % but at least most of them.
If you you are unaware of the science behind evolution, quantum mechanics or global warming you can be expected to have an educated opinion on these topics.

Smart people, like you, are atheists. Smart people, like you, accept the theory of evolution. Smart people, like you, lean to the left politically. Republicans are not like you, so they must be stupid.

I think most highly educated people still lean to the right politically because of the fact that they have higher salaries and can fight for themselves and their families. So this 'proves' wrong 2 or 3 statements you just made.

However, many prominent intelligent people, such as our democrat president are professed believers in God. Again, you are taking common attributes, such as religiosity, or poorly educated, and creating a caricature of a republican. Whereas to do the same thing for poor southern black Baptists would be reprehensible.

I have problems with any person who is against interracial marriage and so should you.

[Mavfin]

All you really need to know about polls: Look who paid for them, if you can. The questions, the people asked, and where they lived are in most cases, massaged to give a pre-determined outcome.

Yes, there are a few polls run in a balanced way to get results unknown beforehand, but they're extremely rare.

As far as Republicans vs Democrats? From a foreign country, one may look better than the other, especially when you consider that European news organs are in many cases even more liberal than US news organizations not named Fox. (and Fox deserves the name Faux, too, they ALL do, because not a one of them reports unbiased anything anymore.) Fact is, they're all a bunch of crooks who will do anything, say anything, to remain in office.

I don't like either one. I'm a fiscal conservative, strong on defense, *and* a social liberal. Strong on defense doesn't mean I think we should go start wars, but we also shouldn't let people walk all over our interests. Fiscal conservative is self-explanatory, and social liberal means I don't really care who's screwing who and their respective genders, as long as they're old enough to consent, and no one's being coerced.

Gay marriage isn't going to change the 'sanctity' of my 20-year hetero marriage, and that gay guy down the street isn't hurting anyone. He's comical, yes, but it's a free country. I can laugh at his antics, but I won't tell him who he can or can't sleep with, as long as they're of age.

So you see, with views like this, neither of the big parties is going to be good for me. Religious views are between me and whatever higher being I wish to commune with, or not.

In summary, from another country, the Republican party looks pretty evil, especially with liberal news organizations doing the reporting. I say that neither is particularly better than the other. The religious nuts think they should be allowed to tell people what to do on one side, while the far left thinks that 'free speech' is fine, as long as they approve of it first, which means it's not 'free' at all. Also, the current President's campaign loves to call you a 'racist' simply for disagreeing with his views.

In the end, the religious nuts and the far left liberals usually don't decide the elections. They're going to vote one way even if Joseph Stalin was running as their party's candidate. The middle usually decides it, and they'll vote who they like the most, or dislike the least, if the choices aren't good. I'm afraid 2012's going to be 2004 all over again. No good choice, so pick the one that scares you less.

Since I only post once in political threads, usually, I'll mention one last thing. The real issue with Obama isn't his politics. A President is expected to make decisions, compromise with Congress when needed, and get things done. In his arrogance, he's done very little for the past four years. Warts and all, our last Dem President, Clinton, did a much better job of doing that. Some of his decisions were wrong, in hindsight, but at least he made some. Obama makes good speeches, and railroaded a few things through a Democratic Congress that was already primed for them, but once the Republican Congress came, he won't even work with them.

[shoju]

Man Mav... We need to stop agreeing or the internet will explode.

[eppie]

Since I only post once in political threads, usually,

That is a pity.
But back to the contents. Most of what you wrote has been discussed many times, and I am aware of it. (the US generally being more right wing than europe...even the democrats) That is why we always root for the democratic candidate because he is as you say the lesser of two evils.

But I guess that also in the US it is not very accepted to say that you are against interracial marriage. I mean when I am around americans I am already afraid of using the words black and whites when describing people's skin color, so I guess most americans would go blind with rage when the read something like this.

Coming back to the point I was raising before; if there is a reason to believe that this particular polling agency has a political agenda that makes it favourable to suggest that 30 % of mississipi republicans are racists than please let me know. (even though I can't understand why that would be politically favourable; the issue here is with people from some of the south eastern states, not with republicans) It for example also doesn't state the skin colour of the respondents.

But on a more global level this remains a pretty important issue. How are you supposed to police the world and tell people how to live their lives if a large part of your population has these ideas. (and don't get me started about them supporting Auburn).
In the Netherlands we have this crazy guy named Wilders who now launched a website where people can complain about nuisance from polish people. Rightfully we are pressured by the EU to undertake action against such things. Needless to say the Dutch are not being taken any more seriously when these things happen.

[LochnarITB]

I probably shouldn't dip my toe into this discussion. I almost never discuss politics, or religion for that matter, outside of immediate family. I wouldn't change anything you said, Mav, until I hit the final statement. I would change it so.

once the Republican Congress came, he won't even work with them, nor they with him.

I feel our current political environment can be described best, and possibly only, as obstructionist. From all sides, and it has infected all levels. As someone stuck having to rely on the system, I live in fear that I will be one of the first to fall through the cracks, when it all implodes, and I am powerless to do anything but watch it coming, like a slow motion train wreck.

YMMV

[shoju]

Saying you are against Interracial Marriage would definitely be a big "uh oh" in American Culture.

I would not associate myself with someone who held that belief, similarly to how I don't associate myself with people are against Gay Marriage. The "what do I call people" really depends on where you live. Around here? Most "African Americans" don't mind being called "black" but then, the racism in my neck of the woods is normally only held by those who drive pickups, with confederate flags, and wish that they lived in Tennessee, Kentucky, or some other "cool southern state"

[Bolty]

I feel our current political environment can be described best, and possibly only, as obstructionist. From all sides, and it has infected all levels.

Correct. And while it's wildly popular to blame the politicians for the obstructionism that both democrats and republicans endorse heavily (while blaming the other side as not compromising), the reality is that the politicians are just doing what their constituents desire. We complain that they are unwilling to compromise, yet if they DO compromise they are lambasted in the media (Fox News punishes the republicans who compromise, while MSNBC punishes the democrats who do so). Under intense pressure to always tow the party lines, they respond accordingly, and government goes nowhere.

I personally believe the media markets are the primary reason our modern government has stalled so. These 24-hour ultra-biased news networks simply didn't exist even 15 years ago in their current capacity and viewership, and politicians could operate more freely without being called out for every sound bite that might not match the media's ideals. A republican could vote yes on a democrat-sponsored bill and not be vilified for 5 straight days on Fox News talk shows, and vice-versa. These politicians want to be re-elected, so why stick your neck out and get labeled as soft just to pass something that the country needs to get passed?

Then again, I recognize that I don't have a memory of political maneuverings spanning decades into the past, and my viewpoint therefore considers THIS time to be the "worst ever." However, I've heard of 40- to 50-year politicians stating publicly that this is the most toxic political environment they have ever seen, so I think there may be some basis in that outlook.

TL;DR: everyone thinks they're a moderate voter, but they sure aren't going to vote for that guy who compromised with that other party! Time to vote in this other guy who will stick to his guns and block everything he disagrees with!

[shoju]

I love you so much right now Bolty.

I am a huge fan of technology, and the web, but I have found that the negatives (the 24 hour ultra-biased news networks) that have grown as a result to be troublesome.

I will have to take your word on MSNBC, as I don't think I've ever actually watched it. I try to watch as little news as I can anymore, preferring to dig through the web to find news articles on a variety of sites.

[Kevin]

I feel our current political environment can be described best, and possibly only, as obstructionist. From all sides, and it has infected all levels.

Then again, I recognize that I don't have a memory of political maneuverings spanning decades into the past, and my viewpoint therefore considers THIS time to be the "worst ever." However, I've heard of 40- to 50-year politicians stating publicly that this is the most toxic political environment they have ever seen, so I think there may be some basis in that outlook.

My local house rep has been in office since 96. I voted for her a couple of times mostly based on the fact that she didn't just tow the party line and would vote based on feedback from the constituents. That has been changing in recent years. I've mailed her a few times in the past on various issues, most recently SOPA/PIPA. I got a party line form letter this time (and I mailed before the internet blackout on it). She now pretty much never crosses the aisle and I think you are absolutely right about why, though it goes beyond just the major networks.

There are smaller bloggers and other information sources that people use that do the same things the big boys are doing and in some cases louder and even more biased. It's very hard to find any unbiased source and while both have a liberal bent I still tend to use NPR and BBC the most of the bigger sources, but they tend to have a big bias in selective coverage. What they do cover tends to still be mostly just reported with multiple sources, but there are some things that they bury or simple don't report on at all.

I would love to remodel our voting system so that we would end up with more distinct parties. I understand the downsides of having to form coalitions to get anything passed this way as with more parties that are hot on more specific issues the chances of a majority or plurality diminish and it is not a cure for obstructionism, but I'm in the same boat as Mav and Shoju on views about a lot of the issues and will admit I share most of the ones Mav posted (and I'm willing to discuss them if people are curious though I generally tend to not put my own views forward in these discussions because they tend to not matter to the core of the topic). But I would be much happier voting on a party that may not cover all my views but does share my views on whatever issue I feel the most strongly about. When I look at most of the parliamentary governments out there that tend to have people form 5+ parties elected this seems to be what happens more.

We need a system revamp, not a party revamp. Both the R's and D's suck because they are just playing by the rules of the system.

[Jester]

I understand the downsides of having to form coalitions to get anything passed this way as with more parties that are hot on more specific issues the chances of a majority or plurality diminish and it is not a cure for obstructionism, but I'm in the same boat as Mav and Shoju on views about a lot of the issues and will admit I share most of the ones Mav posted (and I'm willing to discuss them if people are curious though I generally tend to not put my own views forward in these discussions because they tend to not matter to the core of the topic).

Just to be clear, the views that you (and Shoju) more or less agree with include, or exclude, the one where the reason government is stalled is that Obama is an arrogant speechifier with an excessively strong agenda that he is unwilling to compromise on?

Because that's the one that's got me wondering if I live on a different planet from Mav.

-Jester

[Kevin]

I understand the downsides of having to form coalitions to get anything passed this way as with more parties that are hot on more specific issues the chances of a majority or plurality diminish and it is not a cure for obstructionism, but I'm in the same boat as Mav and Shoju on views about a lot of the issues and will admit I share most of the ones Mav posted (and I'm willing to discuss them if people are curious though I generally tend to not put my own views forward in these discussions because they tend to not matter to the core of the topic).

Just to be clear, the views that you (and Shoju) more or less agree with include, or exclude, the one where the reason government is stalled is that Obama is an arrogant speechifier with an excessively strong agenda that he is unwilling to compromise on?

Because that's the one that's got me wondering if I live on a different planet from Mav.

-Jester

I exclude that one from the views I share.

[Nystul]

Correct. And while it's wildly popular to blame the politicians for the obstructionism that both democrats and republicans endorse heavily (while blaming the other side as not compromising), the reality is that the politicians are just doing what their constituents desire. We complain that they are unwilling to compromise, yet if they DO compromise they are lambasted in the media (Fox News punishes the republicans who compromise, while MSNBC punishes the democrats who do so). Under intense pressure to always tow the party lines, they respond accordingly, and government goes nowhere.

Maybe the collective will is truly in favor of obstruction. For quite some time the legislature was controlled by the Democrats but the Republicans controlled the White House more often than not. Clinton had 2 years to run his agenda before the country put out a big stop sign and put Republicans in charge of the House for the first time in decades. Since then it seems like the midterm election always strongly favors the party who doesn't have the sitting President. Perhaps our greatest fear as a nation is what will happen if we let our leaders (of whichever party) actually run the country (with an open spending account no less).

[kandrathe]

Maybe the collective will is truly in favor of obstruction. For quite some time the legislature was controlled by the Democrats but the Republicans controlled the White House more often than not. Clinton had 2 years to run his agenda before the country put out a big stop sign and put Republicans in charge of the House for the first time in decades. Since then it seems like the midterm election always strongly favors the party who doesn't have the sitting President. Perhaps our greatest fear as a nation is what will happen if we let our leaders (of whichever party) actually run the country (with an open spending account no less).

It's odd for me to say... The person who seems to be making the most sense currently is the sitting President. He's not perfect, and his biggest failing was that he was too inexperienced and in the past he allowed other strong leaders to define his agenda. Now, he's learned by failing, and he's starting to be an effective leader, and setting his own agenda -- one which is good for the country and he's not just pushing his parties wish list.

Were he not constrained by a failed economy, I guess we'd differ more in tax policy, and similarly if he were not constrained by debt issues, I imagine we'd differ in the levels of expenditures. As it stands, the general consensus in the middle is that increasing taxation would jeopardize the recovery, and not decreasing spending will lead us to a Greek style debt crisis. The biggest area where I differ from Obama, or any of the leading Republicans is in the area of interventionist foreign policy. I would like us to finally dismantle the war engine we built in WWII.

[Mavfin]

Just to be clear, the views that you (and Shoju) more or less agree with include, or exclude, the one where the reason government is stalled is that Obama is an arrogant speechifier with an excessively strong agenda that he is unwilling to compromise on?

Because that's the one that's got me wondering if I live on a different planet from Mav.

-Jester

OK, I'll break my rule here. Fact is, I will note that he did make a quick decision when they went into Pakistan to eliminate a certain infamous person.

Also, yes, the Congress is as much to blame as he is for the obstrucitonism, and you notice I express my distaste for both parties. It's possible that my impression of him is still colored (I know, punny term to use for this) by the overly free use of 'racist' by his campaign in the last election, just for disagreeing with his views. So, I might not be cutting him enough slack now.

To me, calling people 'racist' just for disagreement, and letting the practice go on in his campaign, pretty much made him un-Presidential in my eyes. If you're going to be the first minority President, step up and show the way, don't hide behind your minority status. Make up your mind. Do you want equality, or privileged status forever? I'd prefer that everyone ignore skin color, because people are people regardless, but, that's not the way people think, it seems. HIs campaign made a particular issue of it.

So, yeah, I might not be particularly charitable to him. You may not agree with me, but I've presented my reasons.


Edit: And I'm not talking about actual racist things said and done. Call them out, definitely. But don't call people racist because they oppose your pet policies.

[shoju]

Jester, That is part of the problem.

We complain, and rail against, and fight and vilify politicians when they cross party lines, because they have no backbone. Now, you are pointing the finger at Obama for his agenda that he is unwilling to compromise on....

This is the problem. We complain no matter what they do. The media pounces on them when they do it, and now, we are doing it here. It would be just as easy to say that the reason that the government is stalled is because the overly republican / Tea Party Congress won't grant concessions to the democrat president, who in turn stands his ground, and grandstands because he doesn't want to be the only one compromising.

[Mavfin]

Jester, That is part of the problem.

We complain, and rail against, and fight and vilify politicians when they cross party lines, because they have no backbone. Now, you are pointing the finger at Obama for his agenda that he is unwilling to compromise on....

This is the problem. We complain no matter what they do. The media pounces on them when they do it, and now, we are doing it here. It would be just as easy to say that the reason that the government is stalled is because the overly republican / Tea Party Congress won't grant concessions to the democrat president, who in turn stands his ground, and grandstands because he doesn't want to be the only one compromising.

And the media makes it worse. In the days before the swarming media, politics was the art of the possible. Now, you can't even do that, because politicians lose office over stupid things.

I remember when this all started, too. Anyone remember Gary Hart? At least back then the news organizations weren't partisan, as they are now. That just makes it worse, because people don't think they have to check their news for accuracy, so they accept all that bias as fact, whether they're watching MSNBC, CNN, or Fox, or someone else.

[Jester]

And the media makes it worse. In the days before the swarming media, politics was the art of the possible. Now, you can't even do that, because politicians lose office over stupid things.

It might be related to the media, but it's not new. This kind of muckraking and scandalmongering has been endemic to US politics since at least the time of Thomas Jefferson. (And probably has been around since the days of Sargon the Great, scrawling out nasty rumours on stone tablets...)

-Jester