• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Trump is in it so, yes.
True, but only to a point. Trump is just better at the role than the others, but we did have Bachmann, Cain, fucking Gingrich (Moon Base boy) to entertain us in '12. This year, the clown car has plenty like Paul, Cruz, Christie. So we could have had fun, but Trump is just completely out douching them all.
 
Are the Republicans all extreme right wing , or is there a wing with a more central position like we have in Australia in both our major parties?

Both parties in the US had a broad range of political views in the past, from conservative to liberal. The main difference between them wasn't in their political philosophy but in their constituencies. The Democrats broadly worked for labor and the workers, the poor and the middle class. The Republicans were the party that worked for the owners and the wealthy.

Both parties and the US in total were moderate. The conservatives in the Democratic Party were the southern racists and segregationists. They were in the party because of history, dating from the Civil War, when the Republicans waged war on the south. The liberals in the Republican Party were the silk stocking liberals like Nelson Rockefeller who were also in the party because of history, the Republicans were the party of the rich and of high duties to protect American industry. Both parties ignored the conservatives, there was never any doubt about what the conservative position would be on any subject, it was always "no." This was not considered to be constructive.

A series of events realigned the parties and the nation as a whole along ideological lines and shifted both parties to the right. First was the passage of the civil rights act in 1964 and of the voting rights act in 1965. This started a long process of separating the southern racists from the Democrats to join the Republicans.

Another was the Vietnam War which was supported by the conservatives, the moderates and the silk stocking liberals and opposed by a vocal minority of young college kids and the civil rights supporting blacks who were being asked to fight and die in the war, who found their political support as a minority in the Democratic Party among the liberals. The Democratic party slowly became associated with the anti-war liberals as it became more and more obvious that the Vietnam War was a mistake.

The third event that moved the parties and the country to the right was the decade long realization by the rich that they increasingly controlled the media as television became more important and newspapers and radio stations were consolidated into large companies. This allowed the rich to control the messages that people saw, read and heard to the benefit of the rich. For example, the rather bizarre, illogical construction that the poor should be given less money in wages so that they have the incentive to work harder to improve themselves and that the rich should be given more money in order to supply them with the incentive to work harder to improve the country.

The rich mandarins who controlled the Republican Party realized that they could realign their party into one solely dedicated to advancing the interests of the rich by making it into a conservative party centered around the southern racists who had been abandoned by the Democrats. This was dependent on three innate characteristics of conservatives. That they had been ignored for so long that they would just be happy to have someone pay attention to them and to listen to their unconstructive positions which always boiled down to different ways of saving "no." That conservatives need constant reassurance that their resistance to and fear of change is legitimate in a world of constant, rapid change, which requires a constant stream of lies to accomplish. And that conservatives can be made out of moderates by playing on their fears and in the US the easiest fear to use was racial, even if it was disguised as states rights or crime running rampant in the streets or part of the war on drugs.

The success of the Republicans moving to the right encouraged the Democrats to also move to the right in an effort to box in or to triangulate the Republican to try to gain the votes of the mythical independents. An effort doomed to failure because the votes of mythical people aren't cast and don't count. The lie of the independent voter is what people tell pollsters before they go into the voting machine and vote for the same people and the same party for whom they have always voted.

The movement to the right of the Democrats didn't box in the Republicans who just moved further to the right to where they currently reside firmly in the range of the reactionary, the people who want to rollback change, to take the country back to the 1950's or even earlier.

So the closest party to being a moderate party in the US is the Democratic party. But even they are largely right of center, not only in the largely useless effort to box in the Republicans but also because politicians are increasingly dependent on the rich for campaign contributions, as the influence of the labor unions wane and the rich gain more influence because money is free speech and corporations are people too.
 
Are the Republicans all extreme right wing , or is there a wing with a more central position like we have in Australia in both our major parties?

These days they are all extremists. A moderate Republican doesn't stand a chance in the primaries. I used to vote on a basis of finding the least objectionable candidate to vote for and hence I registered Republican as I feared them more than the Democrats. These days I can't even find one to hold my nose and vote for.
 
Holy crap!

CNN just described a Trump event as having a "huge turnout" of 2000 people. Yet glossing over Sanders getting ten times that amount.

Bernie gets no respect. He is the only candidate who is willing to stand up for the 99% against the 1%. Obviously this is not the way to get voters to support him. Our national obsession with the need to manipulate economic policies to direct as much of our nation's income to the already wealthy is deep and engrained.

Why? I don't know. You would have to ask one of our resident neoliberal, supply siders. They won't take the time to explain it to me. I made an entire thread dedicated to the conservative fealty to that failed economic theory but none of our resident conservatives bothered to participate. It is almost as if they don't have a reasonable explanation to continue to increase income inequality.
 
It is almost as if they don't have a reasonable explanation to continue to increase income inequality.

Isn't it so that the already rich can get more money?

You clearly have no idea what the monthly payments on a 60' yacht are or you wouldn't be begrudging them a little extra cash.*

* By "a little", I mean "a lot of".
 
Are the Republicans all extreme right wing , or is there a wing with a more central position like we have in Australia in both our major parties?

These days they are all extremists. A moderate Republican doesn't stand a chance in the primaries. I used to vote on a basis of finding the least objectionable candidate to vote for and hence I registered Republican as I feared them more than the Democrats. These days I can't even find one to hold my nose and vote for.

It is terrible what has happened to the Republican Party. It use to be the sane party. Now it is a party of the worse nightmares you can have. These people who are in it don't seem to realize how out of touch they are with reality, they have grown up with these few talking points meant to scare everyone into the conservative camp. They don't realize that in no way does this random collection of scare tactics constitute a reasonable way to groven the country. Even the total disaster that was the Bush II administration didn't convince them. They listened to the lies that it wasn't deregulation that caused the GFC&R of 2008, it was regulations that caused it, an easy to debunk proposition, if they would consider it. The Bush administration was forced to invade Iraq to protect us from the non-existent weapons of mass destruction because negotiating to get rid of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction would be too uncertain, would appear too weak compared to starting an unnecessary war.

The Democrats seem to feel that their best chance of winning is to tack as close to the Republicans as they can, leaving the traditional Democrats with nothing and no one.
 
It is almost as if they don't have a reasonable explanation to continue to increase income inequality.

Isn't it so that the already rich can get more money?

You clearly have no idea what the monthly payments on a 60' yacht are or you wouldn't be begrudging them a little extra cash.*

* By "a little", I mean "a lot of".

I don't know. I am beginning to believe that they are all convinced that the black and brown hordes will take everything from them if they let their guard down. That supporting and further enriching the already rich is the only way to prevent racial Armageddon. That the blacks and browns are really the only racists left, that whites are really disadvantaged about everything now. They use to understand that this was only bullsh*t to gain votes from the rubes, but now it is an entire party of rubes that are willing to disadvantage themselves to the already rich rather than to disadvantage themselves to the racial hordes.
 
Are the Republicans all extreme right wing , or is there a wing with a more central position like we have in Australia in both our major parties?

These days they are all extremists. A moderate Republican doesn't stand a chance in the primaries. I used to vote on a basis of finding the least objectionable candidate to vote for and hence I registered Republican as I feared them more than the Democrats. These days I can't even find one to hold my nose and vote for.
I remember George Bush senior, and apart from invading Iraq which something had to be done once Saddam invaded Kuwait, but he didn't seem to be an extremist like his son was larger on.
 
One of the campaign planks for the Democrats, whether it is Hillary or Bernie, will be how the economy improved since the collapse of 2008.

I see a dysfunctional economy. So do the people on the street. Statistics mean little to those who need food.

Food banks struggle to meet surprising demand

It's going to be an interesting campaign with the Democrats telling people they are better off than they feel they are.
 
One of the campaign planks for the Democrats, whether it is Hillary or Bernie, will be how the economy improved since the collapse of 2008.


How dare they?!

I see a dysfunctional economy.


Of course you do. Fortunately, not everyone wants an economy based in pie-in-the-sky libertarian principles.

So do the people on the street. Statistics mean little to those who need food.


Yeah, you're really in touch with the people in the street. :rolleyes:
 
The economy is dysfunctional, you can find signals that show whatever you want. You want indicators of a good economy, you'll find them. You want indicators of a bad economy, you'll find them.

The real test is what the majority of voters feel, not what statistics you show them.
 
The economy is dysfunctional, you can find signals that show whatever you want. You want indicators of a good economy, you'll find them. You want indicators of a bad economy, you'll find them.


But if you want to tell people that the economy is no better than it was during the crash of 2008, you would have to resort to lying.
 
The economy is dysfunctional, you can find signals that show whatever you want. You want indicators of a good economy, you'll find them. You want indicators of a bad economy, you'll find them.

The real test is what the majority of voters feel, not what statistics you show them.
The majority (outside of the deep South) have seen a recovery hand many places are prospering.
 
It's a fact, and no matter what spin is put on it. The strong US Dollar is a sign that the economy is in growth mode.
 
Back
Top Bottom