Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=briansd1]Partisanship is part of the human herding instinct, I believe. We want to pick a team we belong to.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. And what’s more people like to pick the team that is winning. Thus if a candidate gets out in front in the polls, they are hard to dislodge because voters seeing that other voters like this candidate are more likely to support the candidate.
[quote=briansd1]
If you love politics, and sports, I’m sure that you’re very partisan. And I suspect that you’re on the right.
[/quote]Don’t follow your logic here. While it may be your experience that people who like politics and sports are likely to be partisan I think that’s a generalization at best, and a blatant stereotype at worst.
As to myself, I don’t particularly like sports. What I said is that politics is more entertaining than a football game, not that I like football games. Neither do I consider myself partisan. When I was in my 20’s I was a staunch democrat who always voted the party ticket. As I got more experienced in the world I realized the shortcomings of that strategy. Now in my 50’s I’ve voted for both Repubs and Dems over the years, and I’ve been registered libertarian more than any other party, but can’t say that I support any party in any way these days. Given that I’m an anti-war, pro-choice, atheist, who’s rooting for the legalization of pot, I think you missed your mark with suspecting I’m “on the right”. (Although I think anyone thinking I’m “on the left” would be equally wrong.)
Participant[quote=briansd1]Partisanship is part of the human herding instinct, I believe. We want to pick a team we belong to.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. And what’s more people like to pick the team that is winning. Thus if a candidate gets out in front in the polls, they are hard to dislodge because voters seeing that other voters like this candidate are more likely to support the candidate.
[quote=briansd1]
If you love politics, and sports, I’m sure that you’re very partisan. And I suspect that you’re on the right.
[/quote]Don’t follow your logic here. While it may be your experience that people who like politics and sports are likely to be partisan I think that’s a generalization at best, and a blatant stereotype at worst.
As to myself, I don’t particularly like sports. What I said is that politics is more entertaining than a football game, not that I like football games. Neither do I consider myself partisan. When I was in my 20’s I was a staunch democrat who always voted the party ticket. As I got more experienced in the world I realized the shortcomings of that strategy. Now in my 50’s I’ve voted for both Repubs and Dems over the years, and I’ve been registered libertarian more than any other party, but can’t say that I support any party in any way these days. Given that I’m an anti-war, pro-choice, atheist, who’s rooting for the legalization of pot, I think you missed your mark with suspecting I’m “on the right”. (Although I think anyone thinking I’m “on the left” would be equally wrong.)
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]
Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.
But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)
The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)
Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.
Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.
‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]
Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.
But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)
The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)
Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.
Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.
‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]
Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.
But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)
The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)
Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.
Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.
‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]
Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.
But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)
The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)
Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.
Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.
‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]
Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.
But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)
The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)
Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.
Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.
‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAfter watching the videos, and reading about this, I’m really amazed that they actually did this. (I know nothing should amaze me at this point, but I’m still amazed.) Just how in the world does even a semi-lucid person think they can get away with this, and that it’s somehow justifiable?
If you see some act of irrational rage, then that’s one thing, but this was done over a period of time, and with some planning. Did they seriously think they had some right to just destroy a house? Did they think this would go unpunished? Did they think they were entitled to do this? What in god’s name was going on in their heads as they did this? I find this totally mindboggling when you stop to think about it.
XBoxBoy.
ParticipantAfter watching the videos, and reading about this, I’m really amazed that they actually did this. (I know nothing should amaze me at this point, but I’m still amazed.) Just how in the world does even a semi-lucid person think they can get away with this, and that it’s somehow justifiable?
If you see some act of irrational rage, then that’s one thing, but this was done over a period of time, and with some planning. Did they seriously think they had some right to just destroy a house? Did they think this would go unpunished? Did they think they were entitled to do this? What in god’s name was going on in their heads as they did this? I find this totally mindboggling when you stop to think about it.
XBoxBoy.
ParticipantAfter watching the videos, and reading about this, I’m really amazed that they actually did this. (I know nothing should amaze me at this point, but I’m still amazed.) Just how in the world does even a semi-lucid person think they can get away with this, and that it’s somehow justifiable?
If you see some act of irrational rage, then that’s one thing, but this was done over a period of time, and with some planning. Did they seriously think they had some right to just destroy a house? Did they think this would go unpunished? Did they think they were entitled to do this? What in god’s name was going on in their heads as they did this? I find this totally mindboggling when you stop to think about it.
XBoxBoy.
ParticipantAfter watching the videos, and reading about this, I’m really amazed that they actually did this. (I know nothing should amaze me at this point, but I’m still amazed.) Just how in the world does even a semi-lucid person think they can get away with this, and that it’s somehow justifiable?
If you see some act of irrational rage, then that’s one thing, but this was done over a period of time, and with some planning. Did they seriously think they had some right to just destroy a house? Did they think this would go unpunished? Did they think they were entitled to do this? What in god’s name was going on in their heads as they did this? I find this totally mindboggling when you stop to think about it.
XBoxBoy.
ParticipantAfter watching the videos, and reading about this, I’m really amazed that they actually did this. (I know nothing should amaze me at this point, but I’m still amazed.) Just how in the world does even a semi-lucid person think they can get away with this, and that it’s somehow justifiable?
If you see some act of irrational rage, then that’s one thing, but this was done over a period of time, and with some planning. Did they seriously think they had some right to just destroy a house? Did they think this would go unpunished? Did they think they were entitled to do this? What in god’s name was going on in their heads as they did this? I find this totally mindboggling when you stop to think about it.
XBoxBoy.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.
The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]
But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.
The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]
But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts
