White Republicans are revolting: They keep winning elections, and keep getting angrier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

So all people begin in the same spot with the same amount of of potential? Then why do people achieve different levels of success in life? They all have the potential, so what that means is they don't have equal opportunity. Shouldn't we be trying to give equal opportunity to those in life?

We aren't equal in that sense.

If we were, we'd all have the same IQ, hair and eye color, height, weight, etc.

We should hope for equality in the sense of having the same laws to operate off of - that IS having equal opportunity. The rules of game are the same for all.




If people aren't equal, then that means some people have less or no potential. In which case they have no ability to make something out of themselves and are doomed to a life of mediocrity or poverty. If that's the case, then shouldn't society take care of them since it means they never had the ability to do so for themselves?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I wouldn't trust literacy statistics whatsoever. Too many vested interests messing with them from the bottom on up. A regional issue. The Feds have no business involving themselves with that one....at least until they can fix the ones they do some responsibility for....don't hold your breath....lol.

So your response (from a person who insults people by saying they read books this is particularly amusing) is to dismiss the statistics and pretend it's not the case? Then why is Louisiana's governor running on a platform that under him the states literacy rate has risen from 60% to 66%?

Romney's loss was due to the 'feel good' vote Obama received. The rest? Minutia.

There was no feel good vote for Obama in 2012, he lost his mojo.

Reagan was NOT moderate right during his era, and you know it. He was hated by the moderate right/Rockefeller Republicans. Right through his Presidency. Compared to today's situation he'd be moderate right...and likely would have changed his campaign to match the current situation....much farther to the right, is my guess.

Reagan was far right for his era, but in absolute terms every president since Reagan has held roughly the same platform, and America has shifted right to the point where that is center right. If we were looking at things from 1979 perspective every President has been far right.

The obvious, OBVIOUS, fact that the actions by the Republican Party has disaffected it's voter base. Therefore, it is flawed. Period.

You may marginalize the 'real' right, blame them, etc., when, in fact, the fault is within the Republican party, itself. They created this mess. They will change or go the way of the Whigs. Their last chance...

The way they're trying to change things will ensure Democrat victories for a decade. If the party splits there will be no effective opposition. Due to the debate structure, whoever ends up with the title of Republican will get their candidate into the general debates and the other won't be in anything.

But frankly, if they're unwilling to compromise, and are running on a platform of what is essentially burning everything down, then they deserve what they get when they end up powerless and impotent.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I wouldn't trust literacy statistics whatsoever. Too many vested interests messing with them from the bottom on up. A regional issue. The Feds have no business involving themselves with that one....at least until they can fix the ones they do some responsibility for....don't hold your breath....lol.

So your response (from a person who insults people by saying they read books this is particularly amusing) is to dismiss the statistics and pretend it's not the case? Then why is Louisiana's governor running on a platform that under him the states literacy rate has risen from 60% to 66%?

Romney's loss was due to the 'feel good' vote Obama received. The rest? Minutia.

There was no feel good vote for Obama in 2012, he lost his mojo.

Reagan was NOT moderate right during his era, and you know it. He was hated by the moderate right/Rockefeller Republicans. Right through his Presidency. Compared to today's situation he'd be moderate right...and likely would have changed his campaign to match the current situation....much farther to the right, is my guess.

Reagan was far right for his era, but in absolute terms every president since Reagan has held roughly the same platform, and America has shifted right to the point where that is center right. If we were looking at things from 1979 perspective every President has been far right.

The obvious, OBVIOUS, fact that the actions by the Republican Party has disaffected it's voter base. Therefore, it is flawed. Period.

You may marginalize the 'real' right, blame them, etc., when, in fact, the fault is within the Republican party, itself. They created this mess. They will change or go the way of the Whigs. Their last chance...

The way they're trying to change things will ensure Democrat victories for a decade. If the party splits there will be no effective opposition. Due to the debate structure, whoever ends up with the title of Republican will get their candidate into the general debates and the other won't be in anything.

But frankly, if they're unwilling to compromise, and are running on a platform of what is essentially burning everything down, then they deserve what they get when they end up powerless and impotent.

No different than the last eight years following the very same logic you endorse now. Powerless. If somehow, a corporate backed, immigration, ACA appeasing 'Republican' did get elected, we'd still be running basically the same policies as Obama is now.

I will take my chances. At least with control of Congress, the Dem President would be forced into continued Constitutional violations to implement their game plan....The third party will take over in the next Presidential Election.

In any event, A right win, not impossible, despite your attempts, changes things...we shall see.

a reply to: Aazadan

Colorado has major military installations. Around those installations tend to be those who served.
www.quora.com...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
No different than the last eight years following the very same logic you endorse now. Powerless. If somehow, a corporate backed, immigration, ACA appeasing 'Republican' did get elected, we'd still be running basically the same policies as Obama is now.

Like Romney? His positions, atleast as Governor were exactly in line with Obama's policies, and Obama's policies have been almost exactly in line with Bush. Which goes back to what I said before, Romney lost because he acted like a pompous jackass praising slavery and making multi thousand dollar bets with other candidates in the middle of a debate. His makers and takers speech didn't help much either.

I will take my chances. At least with control of Congress, the Dem President would be forced into continued Constitutional violations to implement their game plan....The third party will take over in the next Presidential Election.

Obama hasn't violated the Constitution. If he had the courts would have stopped him, for that matter Congress would have been able to stop him.

I'm not sure you understand what the Constitution actually says.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Aazadan

Colorado has major military installations. Around those installations tend to be those who served.
www.quora.com...

What you linked is complete fiction, and not the semi factual type like what Tom Clancy writes but outright fiction based on pretty much nothing.

But, if you happened to read your link you would see that Colorado is one of the first to fall.

a reply to: Aazadan

Spare me your spin. The intent was violated. You know it. I know it. The majority know it. From prosecutorial discretion to outright allowing DHA, EPA, ICE set their own rules and regulations completely by-passing Congress. Even Liberal advocates call it the fourth level of gov't.

If you and your ilk stretched the envelope to make it 'work', the intent is obvious.

That is why you and the 'professional experts' are being fired. Pure and simple. This mess largely fall is your camp, the 'experts'. As you say not much difference in the prosecution of the war, bail-outs, so on, That advice came from your camp. To both parties. We see the results.

Romney lost because he didn't carry the conservatives. Period. He won the independents...but NOT the base. You can blame whatever you wish. The 'moderate' lost.

Your spin is passe. No longer applicable. The right will win the nomination this go around or in the next...as a third party.

I would put up with another Obama before putting up with you and yours.

a reply to: nwtrucker

DHS, EPA, and all the other agencies fall under the Executive branch. Congressional oversight cannot dictate the direction an agency takes, what they can do is see if the agencies actions line up with the agencies mission statement. Their rules and regulations are supposed to bypass Congress. It's on Congress to determine if those rules and regulations are in line with the agencies stated goals. If the agency has circumvented those goals or is casting too wide a net, Congress can put them back in line.

And no, nowhere has Obama violated the intent of the Constitution.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

DHS, EPA, and all the other agencies fall under the Executive branch. Congressional oversight cannot dictate the direction an agency takes, what they can do is see if the agencies actions line up with the agencies mission statement. Their rules and regulations are supposed to bypass Congress. It's on Congress to determine if those rules and regulations are in line with the agencies stated goals. If the agency has circumvented those goals or is casting too wide a net, Congress can put them back in line.

And no, nowhere has Obama violated the intent of the Constitution.

Garbage. Your post is a perfect example where the 'experts' have spun themselves into a mantra of justified confusion and contradictions.

In case you've missed it in your 'all is well' mentality. All isn't well. Congress can put them back into line ,eh? Short of cutting off the money supply, there isn't much they can effectively do. Of course, your Republican Establishment fears media backlash from a shutdown even when that mechanism has been used, what, 17 times between the 1970s and 1990's with no ill effects.

The 'right' has zero problem with a shut down. Another hang-wringing ineffectual Congress run by your moderates have given us.

DHS and the EPA has no business being in the Executive Branch, despite any legalese you will inevitably post.

All the more reason to elect a non-moderate, in my estimation. Yep, try to tell us Obama has the right to give 3000 dollars to Corporations that hire illegals given documentation that violates federal law. Right.

You know better. Justifying it merely reinforces that proof you guys need to be booted out of gov't business. Lawyers. My contempt.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: amazing
I would say that Rush and Hannity ARE main stream. They both have millions of listeners ...how much more mainstream can you get? They both influence republican voters. They have a lot of influence. I can't take people that whine and complain and are negative all the time, so I can only take them in small, very small doses. It makes me sick really.

I do listen and read. I know what's going on.

These two and really most of the pundits on right wing media are to blame for all of this outrage.

It's one thing to dislike a policy and have an argument and discussion about it and offer a solution.

But when people use terms like feminazi and Obumer and the kenyan communist and all the rest. I know I can disregard everything those people say because they are clearly brainwashed and not right in the head.

When someone constantly complains about only one side of our government/they have blinders on to their own party. Like Limbaugh and Hannity and OReilly and Coulter...I know I can't trust someone who can't be honest.

Still putting out the same lies, eh? You asked why the right media doesn't criticize the Republican party. They do. Often.

I'd love to see the 'reasonable and rational' left media jump on their Democrat party. Not gonna happen.

You are correct. Left wing media has the same problem. No argument here with that.

But this thread was about Right wing anger and outrage. It's a direct problem that is caused by right wing propaganda.

No lies. Right wing pundits have blinders on. I'm talking about pundits not newscasters.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: amazing

Of course, calling Conservatives 'terrorists' or stating those that oppose climate change should be arrested...or Hillary's open up the borders, none of that is extreme, is it?

You might get the idea rhetoric is different from actions. Political rhetoric is even more extreme...on both sides.

Your quotes only impress the unthinking, on either side.

Both sides have rhetoric. I think you misunderstand though, this thread is about conservative/right wing anger and bias.

If you would watch MSNBC one night, you would see propaganda, for sure, but it doesn't have the same hate and anger and outrage as those on the right.

a reply to: introvert

Salon news?!? You have got to be kidding!

Salon is one of the worst liberal slanted rags on the planet. Based in San Francisco, salon first became famous for defending clinton amid his impeachment scandals. Even in the face of that degree of liberal embarrassment salon held on to its liberal slant.

Salon is right up there with the DM.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I know. That is why I added an important caveat in the OP about the problems with the source and asked people to address the content.

Care to comment on the content?