Conservatives still not getting it

[~Corsair#01~]

The problem the Republicans have is that they alienated Hispanic voters, who would normally vote Republican in the majority, with their attitude towards immigration.

If Mitt Romney had said two weeks ago that he would give some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants in America, he'd be President. Simple as that. But the GOP is being dragged along by its dwindling white base and until that changes they're going to keep declining.

 

[holy king]

Communists. War is civilization: without it, we are as apes in the mud.

you mean ants in the hill? no, wait...

 

[civver_764]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11...tm_campaign=is-this-child-dead-enough-for-you

That was really powerful, thanks for posting.

 

[Lone Wolf]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11...tm_campaign=is-this-child-dead-enough-for-you

Nice denunciation of US imperialism, comrade. However, we need to remember that we True Leftists are not pacifists. We are perfectly willing to kill 10, 100, 1000 children if it advances the interests of workers and hurts the ruling class. Anything else is futile bourgeios moralism

 

[timtofly]

Nice denunciation of US imperialism, comrade. However, we need to remember that we True Leftists are not pacifists. We are perfectly willing to kill 10, 100, 1000 children if it advances the interests of workers and hurts the ruling class. Anything else is futile bourgeios moralism

Wait, so you are not sending all those bodies to hell?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Wait, so you are not sending all those bodies to hell?

I don't understand you? We revolutionary materialists reject the idealistic religious notion of Hell

 

[Cutlass]

For others who were not familiar with the phrase epistemic closure as it relates to politics:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure :


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Sanchez_(writer) :


Thank you, Alps, I've learned my word/phrase for the day from CFC OT. That said, I cannot figure out what the hell MSM is from your post. Multi-Sex Marriage? A quick internet search comes up with a bunch of nutritional links.

Here's my problem with your post. You blow with the wind and are all over the place. YOU were the shrill one not long ago, convinced that Obama was gonna get his arse handed to him, forcing you to endure the indignity of living under a Romney administration. Now that he lost, you admit yourself taking great pleasure in the discomfort of others, have made multiple threads about it, and yet now expect any of us to read your post and think it's coming from the perspective of someone who is just sad about what's happening in the GOP? Sorry, I am not buying it.

You, and the rest of the country's leftist taking so much glee in your victory have shown me one thing. You cannot be reasoned with, period. I've been a traitor to my principles because I've usually voted for who I thought was the best person individually for a particular race, even if I didn't always agree with their views. This led me in this election, and in elections past, to vote for several Democrats for the position of US Senate, Governor, and so forth. Well no more, and I thank you and others like you for opening my eyes. It is you on the left who have made it abundantly clear that dialogue and compromise are simply no longer possible in America, and that saddens me.

That said, yes, the GOP does need to change. On abortion? No, certainly not. Innocent life should never be a bargaining chip. On gay rights, yes. On immigration, yes, open those floodgates (and I've said this repeatedly and consistently), but still we need to find those who entered illegally and get them out. Breaking the law should not be rewarded.

Thank you, Alps, for reinvigorating the spirit of an old conservative warrior who's been slipping of late.

I'm only inclined to gloating because of the extreme nutjobness on the other side. In an election between 2 conservatives the real conservative won. This does not justify writing the obituary of the nation of the whole of the human race.

 

[LucyDuke]

You, and the rest of the country's leftist taking so much glee in your victory have shown me one thing. You cannot be reasoned with, period. I've been a traitor to my principles because I've usually voted for who I thought was the best person individually for a particular race, even if I didn't always agree with their views. This led me in this election, and in elections past, to vote for several Democrats for the position of US Senate, Governor, and so forth. Well no more, and I thank you and others like you for opening my eyes. It is you on the left who have made it abundantly clear that dialogue and compromise are simply no longer possible in America, and that saddens me.

Is that what I should conclude from the loud crazies on your side? That's the impression I get, too, whenever I only listen to loud crazies.

Because I'm not going to stoop to that.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've been following conservative forums and blogs feverishly since the election.

They still don't get it. They don't understand what's killing them. They won't even admit the epistemic closure exists.

I understand what happened. "Leftists" ( meaning people less conservative than the observer ) infiltrated the media. Every TV show, every news report, everything outside of the closure seems to be a constant attack on their values.So they've scurried into a labyrinthine underworld of talk radio, conservative blogs, and conservative forums. Home schools. Mega-Churches. Creationist theme parks. Places where predicting God's imminent wrath against America and barely-coherent ranting paired with Bible quotes is normal. They think that we'll all just 'get it' and become pro-life, anti-SSM creationists if we just "see the truth."

My schadenfreude is stifled by just how tragic it all seems. People think the Republicans didn't win because they "let the MSM bully Todd Akin." Ann Coulter is being branded a sellout now because of this bit:



When Ann Coulter is the voice of reason who is being purged for impurity you know something is up. I know the usual suspects are about to come in and mock my "triumphalism," but don't minimize what's going on here. With gay marriage fresh off of winning its first real, firm victories they decide that it must be time to become more shrill, more apocalyptic, more starkly theocratic.

I'm skeptical that the people who are smart enough to figure out their next move will have the power to fix it. I think we're going to see an easy Democrat win in 2016 as the ballot will be Democrat vs Republican vs Libertarian vs <Theocratic third party yet to be named>.

When your party comes across as an airhorn directly to the eardrum it doesn't take much to defeat you.

Coulter is indeed a sellout because she didn't really change any of her beliefs, if she did indeed have any anyway (Coulter is on some kind of drugs anyway, she's absolutely insane.) And I'd be a sellout as well if I said abortion was OK in cases of rape, because I don't.

Do I consider those who say that to be sellouts? Depends on if they really believe it or not.

If the GOP gives up the life issue they will never, ever, ever get my vote. I already hate them because of their stances on war and surveilance. Giving up the life issue would leave me with absolutely zero reason to not just vote Libertarian.

Come to think of it, I hope they do. It'll give me a bargaining chip to get some of my family to go Libertarian as well

If Republicans focus on real freedom ( not the Jesus-only kind ) and their economic stances the Democrats are screwed. The SoCons aren't going to vote, perhaps, but I really don't think the country wants as much welfare as the Democrats do. We get by with it because of freaks like Akin and Mourdock.

Indeed.

For others who were not familiar with the phrase epistemic closure as it relates to politics:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure :


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Sanchez_(writer) :


Thank you, Alps, I've learned my word/phrase for the day from CFC OT. That said, I cannot figure out what the hell MSM is from your post. Multi-Sex Marriage? A quick internet search comes up with a bunch of nutritional links.

Here's my problem with your post. You blow with the wind and are all over the place. YOU were the shrill one not long ago, convinced that Obama was gonna get his arse handed to him, forcing you to endure the indignity of living under a Romney administration. Now that he lost, you admit yourself taking great pleasure in the discomfort of others, have made multiple threads about it, and yet now expect any of us to read your post and think it's coming from the perspective of someone who is just sad about what's happening in the GOP? Sorry, I am not buying it.

You, and the rest of the country's leftist taking so much glee in your victory have shown me one thing. You cannot be reasoned with, period. I've been a traitor to my principles because I've usually voted for who I thought was the best person individually for a particular race, even if I didn't always agree with their views. This led me in this election, and in elections past, to vote for several Democrats for the position of US Senate, Governor, and so forth. Well no more, and I thank you and others like you for opening my eyes. It is you on the left who have made it abundantly clear that dialogue and compromise are simply no longer possible in America, and that saddens me.

That said, yes, the GOP does need to change. On abortion? No, certainly not. Innocent life should never be a bargaining chip. On gay rights, yes. On immigration, yes, open those floodgates (and I've said this repeatedly and consistently), but still we need to find those who entered illegally and get them out. Breaking the law should not be rewarded.

Thank you, Alps, for reinvigorating the spirit of an old conservative warrior who's been slipping of late.

On the bold you are absolutely right.

I don't think all of the left is unable to be reasoned with, however. Alps seems like he'd be much more willing to reason with the libertarian-right than the conservative right. Some liberals are more willing to compromise in general than others. Same with conservatives. But compromise isn't always good either.

I'm only inclined to gloating because of the extreme nutjobness on the other side. In an election between 2 conservatives the real conservative won. This does not justify writing the obituary of the nation of the whole of the human race.

Define "Conservative".

You contradicted yourself, you said that there were two conservatives, but that the "Real Conservative(tm)" won. Meaning there was really only one conservative in the race

 

[Cutlass]

Define "Conservative".

You contradicted yourself, you said that there were two conservatives, but that the "Real Conservative(tm)" won. Meaning there was really only one conservative in the race

There was only one "conservative" in the race. And that was Obama. Romney might have been a conservative years ago. But he certainly distanced himself as far from there as he could for this election.

Here's a hint: Conservatives try to "conserve" things. Which is what Obama has been doing. Romney was trying to radically change things.

 

[classical_hero]

@Cutlass I thought Obama was all about hope and change. Change is hardly keeping the status quo. I think we didn't properly know where Romney stood and thus people couldn't trust him.

 

[Cutlass]

@Cutlass I thought Obama was all about hope and change. Change is hardly keeping the status quo. I think we didn't properly know where Romney stood and thus people couldn't trust him.

And what has he changed or even threatened to change? At most he was about going back the more successful policies the US had before Bush. But he certainly wasn't about going back to the even more successful policies we had before Reagan. But still, those are about conserving the system! They are not about making any radical change to the system. If Obama was not about 100% status quo, he was certainly about 95+% status quo. And the other ~5% was clearly broken, and so the rest of the status quo needed the repair of the broken pieces to continue to stand.

To work up an analogy, Obama saw a house with a crumbling foundation and set out to fix it so it would continue to hold up the house. Romney saw a house with a crumbling foundation and said "we don't need that, lets just take a hammer to it and get it out of the way".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You, and the rest of the country's leftist taking so much glee in your victory have shown me one thing. You cannot be reasoned with, period.

2004 called.

 

[downtown]

He won married women by seven points and still lost handily, you mean.

Obama's swing state margin was about 500K votes. He lost every income group above 50K as well. This was an electoral college blowout, but not a blowout blowout.

I mean, sorry, LOLOMG CONSERVATIVES ARE OVAR

 

[luiz]

Obama's swing state margin was about 500K votes. He lost every income group above 50K as well. This was an electoral college blowout, but not a blowout blowout.

I mean, sorry, LOLOMG CONSERVATIVES ARE OVAR

Goes to show how badly the US is doing nowadays if a guy can lose every income group from moderate middle class above and still be elected President...

 

[downtown]

Goes to show how badly the US is doing nowadays if a guy can lose every income group from moderate middle class above and still be elected President...

It is concerning. Obama won them all, even incomes above 250K in 2008.

Given the trend line, and the fact that we group incomes as 50-100, 100-250 and 250+, I hypothesize that the Obama/Romney break is somewhere around the high 60s range.

A whole lot of folks went from comfortable to uncomfortable income levels in the past 6 years...

 

[GhostWriter16]

There was only one "conservative" in the race. And that was Obama. Romney might have been a conservative years ago. But he certainly distanced himself as far from there as he could for this election.

Here's a hint: Conservatives try to "conserve" things. Which is what Obama has been doing. Romney was trying to radically change things.

If that's the standard you're using, a lot of what passes for "conservatism" really isn't

Romney sounded like he was going to radically change things perhaps, but I don't actually believe he would have followed through.

@Cutlass I thought Obama was all about hope and change. Change is hardly keeping the status quo. I think we didn't properly know where Romney stood and thus people couldn't trust him.

A lot of it ended up being empty rhetoric. But he has made a few, negative changes already. For instance, Americans now have no choice but to pay health insurance. And Uncle Sam's share of the nation's income is growing.

And what has he changed or even threatened to change? At most he was about going back the more successful policies the US had before Bush. But he certainly wasn't about going back to the even more successful policies we had before Reagan. But still, those are about conserving the system! They are not about making any radical change to the system. If Obama was not about 100% status quo, he was certainly about 95+% status quo. And the other ~5% was clearly broken, and so the rest of the status quo needed the repair of the broken pieces to continue to stand.

To work up an analogy, Obama saw a house with a crumbling foundation and set out to fix it so it would continue to hold up the house. Romney saw a house with a crumbling foundation and said "we don't need that, lets just take a hammer to it and get it out of the way".

I think you might be a little up there on the percentages, but this is humorous.

I think had Romney gotten elected however, he would have still done the same thing. I trust how he actually governed in Ma. more than I do whatever rhetoric he was spewing before the election. Not that I really trust any part of Romney at all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A lot of it ended up being empty rhetoric. But he has made a few, negative changes already. For instance, Americans now have no choice but to pay health insurance.

You don't have to pay health insurance. You either a) already have it b) get subsidized for getting because you are not affluent enough to get it on your own - possibly even 100% subsidized or c) pay a fine and don't pay for health insurance.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Fair enough. Still "Don't pay for it and take your own risks" should also be an option, and its not.

Its not an option I feel the desire to exercise, but it should still be an option.

 

[downtown]

Fair enough. Still "Don't pay for it and take your own risks" should also be an option, and its not.

Its not an option I feel the desire to exercise, but it should still be an option.

Why? If you dont have it and an emergency happens, you have to go to the ER and then everybody else ends up paying for it anyway....unless you want hospitals to be able to turn away folks with emergency health problems.