U.S. politics isolation tank

[Netzach]

The person you want to hang with. Not saying I like this but it might be how our brains work.



Yes, it was Freakanomics! Thank you. I better go back and read that chapter.

It is how our brains work. Much as I hate listening to all those body language expert pundits they get at pundit mart - this is actually one of the few times both guys had that middle aged but usually vital lens-likes-him potential. As Mitt got increasingly more wide in the eye ohshit looking even the obviously fatigued Obama started winning that war. I think it would have gone the other way if that hadn't happened.

 

[CutieMouse]

There are a LOT of center-left issues I'm to the left of or the right of, but I will not play in a sandbox with that much poop in it, for ANY reason, poop targeted and designed to hurt ME as a human, not poop-shrapnel.

This is pretty much the conversation I had with the eldest three children over the last month or so.

I take issue with ABCD re: this political party/platform/leadership.
I take issue with WXYZ re: that political party/platform/leadership.

Who should I be least ashamed to vote for?

Yay politics!

 

[midwestyankee]

This is pretty much the conversation I had with the eldest three children over the last month or so.

I take issue with ABCD re: this political party/platform/leadership.
I take issue with WXYZ re: that political party/platform/leadership.

Who should I be least ashamed to vote for?

Yay politics!

Short of running for office ourselves and putting 100% of our beliefs on the line, this is the best that any of us can do. and as long as we actually do make the choice, that's plenty good.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Hmmm.... that didn't work too well.

And - LTNS, guy!

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Hmmm.... that didn't work too well.

And - LTNS, guy!

Hopefully that fixed it.

Good to see you. Glad you are doing better.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Hopefully that fixed it.

Good to see you. Glad you are doing better.

That did fix it, and thank you for posting yet another thing for me to smile about today.

And thank you for the good wishes.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think that the whole discussion of rape has been a distilling proxy for what ails the Republican party. By this I mean that the sharpness of the idea that a seemingly good man could so easily dismiss the outrage that is rape helped to make the big differences between the party perfectly clear.

The Republicans seem to want to remain the party of people who believe that the 1950s really were the best of times. But they are blind to a real problem with their world view: it's not accurate and yet they adhere to it with the fervor of evangelicals. It's not totally their fault, in the sense that they were born this way.

Their collective memory doesn't include the pains of segregation or the yearning for freedom felt by the ever-more-well-educated women of America. Their collective memory does not connect with the lives of immigrants who don't mostly resemble them.

But most importantly, their collective memory does not include a burning desire to rebel against authority - all authority - for a few brief years as a late teen and young adult. That rebellion is essential to human progress. It's a form of rebellion to want to discover a better mousetrap, to figure out better ways to teach children, and to make different music than your parents enjoyed. It drove Mozart as much as it drove Abby Hoffman; it drove Bill Gates as much as it drove Bill Clinton.

That's how I see it right now, anyway. Or maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night.

 

[JMohegan]

For all of this handwringing over the future of the GOP, doesn't the evidence suggest that we just pick who we like and then justify it?

Yes and no.

When people are hurting economically, no. They'll forego likability if they believe a candidate can & will help them out.

Also, when people feel genuinely threatened in some key way (e.g., by a candidate who is demonstrably anti-whatever-demographic-the-voters-are-in), no.

Otherwise, as a general matter, I think you're right. For example - the beer factor explains Dubya, both times.

 

[CutieMouse]

I think that the whole discussion of rape has been a distilling proxy for what ails the Republican party. By this I mean that the sharpness of the idea that a seemingly good man could so easily dismiss the outrage that is rape helped to make the big differences between the party perfectly clear.

The interesting thing about talking to eldest daughter about the election, was her gut reaction to all the rape commentary that's come out. That child will never vote Republican, specifically because of comments like the ones shown by D2MLG.

(I cannot begin to tell you how thrilled I am to see every last one of those men out of power.)

The Republicans seem to want to remain the party of people who believe that the 1950s really were the best of times. But they are blind to a real problem with their world view: it's not accurate and yet they adhere to it with the fervor of evangelicals. It's not totally their fault, in the sense that they were born this way.

Their collective memory doesn't include the pains of segregation or the yearning for freedom felt by the ever-more-well-educated women of America. Their collective memory does not connect with the lives of immigrants who don't mostly resemble them.

Every time I see the "party of the people 1950s style" it makes me think of people with a 50s style BDSM fetish. Because holy.shit. If you read the Fet forums dedicated to that "ideal"... those people actually base their entire understanding of the 1950s around TV shows. If one points out the reality of the 1950s - nope. Prosperity everywhere, women never worked outside the home, chicken in every pot, car in every driveway.

Creepy.

(This coming from a chick who's ideal relationship would revolve around being a full time homemaker/sex toy. )

But most importantly, their collective memory does not include a burning desire to rebel against authority - all authority - for a few brief years as a late teen and young adult. That rebellion is essential to human progress. It's a form of rebellion to want to discover a better mousetrap, to figure out better ways to teach children, and to make different music than your parents enjoyed. It drove Mozart as much as it drove Abby Hoffman; it drove Bill Gates as much as it drove Bill Clinton.

That's how I see it right now, anyway. Or maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night.

There was a study released a while back... can't remember the source. The Man™ showed it to me. Anyway, [some] research suggests that biochemically teens/young adults do that massive rebellion/stupid decision making thing, because it's the closest thing to a hunter/gatherer/gain skills to protect the tribe thing than 21st century man has. Rebelling against the generation that came before you, solidifies your skills for generations to come or something like that.

 

[intothewoods]

It is how our brains work. Much as I hate listening to all those body language expert pundits they get at pundit mart - this is actually one of the few times both guys had that middle aged but usually vital lens-likes-him potential. As Mitt got increasingly more wide in the eye ohshit looking even the obviously fatigued Obama started winning that war. I think it would have gone the other way if that hadn't happened.

Yeah, likeability is probably a little fluid, right? Romney presenting an appealing package after the first debate but ultimately he was more seen as rich, heartless, incompetent (foreign policy blunders) and not relevant (hurricane). Flip flopper too. And associated with team rape, as the kids on twitter are saying.

Yes and no.

When people are hurting economically, no. They'll forego likability if they believe a candidate can & will help them out.

Also, when people feel genuinely threatened in some key way (e.g., by a candidate who is demonstrably anti-whatever-demographic-the-voters-are-in), no.

Otherwise, as a general matter, I think you're right. For example - the beer factor explains Dubya, both times.

In some ways though it does come back to likeability -- or superficial v. substantive, perhaps. Take the crazy abortion comments as an example. Republican policy generally hasn't changed, but comments that appear insensitive were the rallying points to torch the campaigns of these guys.

ETA - good to see you JM!

 

[intothewoods]

And now on the issues...

What if you had a Republican who was completely liberal or hands-off on the social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, etc. -- but who had a sophisticated, smart approach to fiscal issues. I understand the philosophy of small government -- and can agree that the government is bloated and not always effective -- but I think it's not realistic or good policy to completely gut the federal government.

The primaries kill the GOP.

 

[JMohegan]

Yeah, likeability is probably a little fluid, right? Romney presenting an appealing package after the first debate but ultimately he was more seen as rich, heartless, incompetent (foreign policy blunders) and not relevant (hurricane). Flip flopper too. And associated with team rape, as the kids on twitter are saying.



In some ways though it does come back to likeability -- or superficial v. substantive, perhaps. Take the crazy abortion comments as an example. Republican policy generally hasn't changed, but comments that appear insensitive were the rallying points to torch the campaigns of these guys.

ETA - good to see you JM!

Good to see you, too!

I hesitate to comment on the abortion issue, because my impression is that most women are good and freakin' tired of men pontificating on their reproductive tracts. But what I've been hearing on the ground for about a year now is an increasing sense (among voters of the female persuasion) that those Republican policy viewpoints are beyond insensitive - to the point of actually threatening women's reproductive health.

In short - there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's point of view on various policy points, and believing that a victory for that person will translate into material personal negative consequences for you.

Actual bills to legislate forced vaginal probes, an utterly irrational obsession with defunding Planned Parenthood, etc. - all fed the fear of tangible negative consequences. Of course, Democrats played up this anti-women narrative. But with dickheads like Akin and Mourdock shooting their mouths off to remind everybody of the threat at hand, at the end of the day this was a narrative of the Republicans' own making.

 

[JMohegan]

And now on the issues...

What if you had a Republican who was completely liberal or hands-off on the social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, etc. -- but who had a sophisticated, smart approach to fiscal issues. I understand the philosophy of small government -- and can agree that the government is bloated and not always effective -- but I think it's not realistic or good policy to completely gut the federal government.

The primaries kill the GOP.

Hate radio, Fox, and the religious right kill the GOP. The primaries are just a symptom of the disease.

 

[intothewoods]

Hate radio, Fox, and the religious right kill the GOP. The primaries are just a symptom of the disease.

Truuuuuue that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And now on the issues...

What if you had a Republican who was completely liberal or hands-off on the social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, etc.

He would be drummed out of the party.

-- but who had a sophisticated, smart approach to fiscal issues.

he would be drummed out of the party.

I understand the philosophy of small government -- and can agree that the government is bloated and not always effective -- but I think it's not realistic or good policy to completely gut the federal government.

You're going to be drummed out of the party.

The primaries kill the GOP.

Wierd how foot-shooting ends up being fatal, isn't it?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Good to see you, too!

I hesitate to comment on the abortion issue, because my impression is that most women are good and freakin' tired of men pontificating on their reproductive tracts. But what I've been hearing on the ground for about a year now is an increasing sense (among voters of the female persuasion) that those Republican policy viewpoints are beyond insensitive - to the point of actually threatening women's reproductive health.

In short - there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's point of view on various policy points, and believing that a victory for that person will translate into material personal negative consequences for you.

Actual bills to legislate forced vaginal probes, an utterly irrational obsession with defunding Planned Parenthood, etc. - all fed the fear of tangible negative consequences. Of course, Democrats played up this anti-women narrative. But with dickheads like Akin and Mourdock shooting their mouths off to remind everybody of the threat at hand, at the end of the day this was a narrative of the Republicans' own making.

To all which I say -- Amen. And then some.

 

[intothewoods]

He would be drummed out of the party. he would be drummed out of the party.You're going to be drummed out of the party.
Wierd how foot-shooting ends up being fatal, isn't it?

Lol, I'm NOT a Republican. Just riffing on the possibilities since I watched a lot of cable news talk today. Not sure why -- totally predictable bullshit!

In a way, I just feel like Obama and Dems aren't pressed enough by progressives on fiscal issues and economic reform because of course we weren't going to vote for the anti-gay, anti-choice party! I mean, that's a simplification and kind of the way national elections go, but ... I don't know ... just feeling the anti-climax right now.

 

[JMohegan]

Lol, I'm NOT a Republican. Just riffing on the possibilities since I watched a lot of cable news talk today. Not sure why -- totally predictable bullshit!

In a way, I just feel like Obama and Dems aren't pressed enough by progressives on fiscal issues and economic reform because of course we weren't going to vote for the anti-gay, anti-choice party! I mean, that's a simplification and kind of the way national elections go, but ... I don't know ... just feeling the anti-climax right now.

Which fiscal issues and/or economic reforms would you like to see addressed?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Lol, I'm NOT a Republican. Just riffing on the possibilities since I watched a lot of cable news talk today. Not sure why -- totally predictable bullshit!

In a way, I just feel like Obama and Dems aren't pressed enough by progressives on fiscal issues and economic reform because of course we weren't going to vote for the anti-gay, anti-choice party! I mean, that's a simplification and kind of the way national elections go, but ... I don't know ... just feeling the anti-climax right now.

Well, yeah, and yeah. But it buys us some breathing time.

 

[intothewoods]

Which fiscal issues and/or economic reforms would you like to see addressed?

Well, I'm no expert, but I feel like a lot of the complaints about wall street/corporate america raised by Occupy just kind of went by the wayside. I think the fed gov should have been tougher in the bailout of big firms. I'm not entirely sure what else would make sense to reign in corporations but I think we need more. I think health care coverage should be broader. Campaign finance is a big complicated issue - again, not entirely sure what the answer is but I think the superpacs are just crazy.

 

[intothewoods]

Well, yeah, and yeah. But it buys us some breathing time.

Well, let's see what happens the next term. Probably not much working with these Republicans.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

And now on the issues...

What if you had a Republican who was completely liberal or hands-off on the social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, etc. -- but who had a sophisticated, smart approach to fiscal issues. I understand the philosophy of small government -- and can agree that the government is bloated and not always effective -- but I think it's not realistic or good policy to completely gut the federal government.

The primaries kill the GOP.

He would be drummed out of the party.

I've been tuning into right wing talk shows for some day-after political porn. And while one of the handwringing points is definitely "we have to change some things," I'm very pleased to announce that any time the comversations veer anywhere near actual policy positions, it quickly autocorrects to 1."We just need to PRESENT our positions more clearly," 2."We just need to get our people TO THE POLLS more efficiently" and 3."We just need an UNAPOLOGETIC conservative who offers voters a clearer choice."

This is all predictable double-downing, and makes me so very happy and warm inside.

The other thing I keep hearing is the sour grapes "the Dems won because they give away "free stuff" and the GOP, ever-responsible, can't and won't compete with that. Please. Besides the easy "freeness" of believing that we can have services and entitlements and military orgies without paying for any of them, how about just the, um, idea of finding out what people want and need and offering the means for them to have that?

That would seem like a winning strategy to me for anyone wanting to be elected. Also seems to be very popular in the business world.

 

[Netzach]

And now on the issues...

What if you had a Republican who was completely liberal or hands-off on the social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, etc. -- but who had a sophisticated, smart approach to fiscal issues. I understand the philosophy of small government -- and can agree that the government is bloated and not always effective -- but I think it's not realistic or good policy to completely gut the federal government.

The primaries kill the GOP.

My reaction?

I'm listening. I think that private sector partnerships and strengthening entrepreneurship are the real answers (or part of the real answer) to social safety net issues in a lot of ways, so if I think that's actually being pursued in a smart way, I'm open to it. If you REALLY want to balance that budget and you don't just want to do it on gramma's back while fighting a pointless "war on drugs" and imprisoning more people than anywhere else, if you're talking about opening bars 24 hours or putting in a race track because the money has to come from SOMETHING I'm not opposed to consideration - I want to see someone have the balls to pull away from prohibition morality, and sin tax stuff other than smokes. Dems will never do it. This GOP will never do it.

I don't partake, but I'm beyond pleased with the 420 wins. There is a huge economic component to decriminalization.

I'm very cynical about the current model preventing addiction, or saving lives. Anything that moves toward harm reduction is a) small government, supposedly they want that and b) worth a try.

 

[Netzach]

In a way, I just feel like Obama and Dems aren't pressed enough by progressives on fiscal issues and economic reform because of course we weren't going to vote for the anti-gay, anti-choice party! I mean, that's a simplification and kind of the way national elections go, but ... I don't know ... just feeling the anti-climax right now.

I can't agree more, you hit the nail on the head. I don't know what the answer is, because the problems are so impenetrable and at every opportunity they're getting away with murder. See the "Country Club Sopranos" article in the Voice, for an idea of how our sober regulatory never again administration has been handling Wall Street.

I almost give up on trying to stop their robbery, I feel like the best I can hope for is a party who will extend some of the incentivization to the individual in a meaningful way that doesn't just translate to helpful for multinationals. The GOP isn't capable of that at present plus dominionist lunacy, and the Dems are missing how this meshes into the social safety net issues, that keeping people from needing that safety net in the first place is part of the picture.

And that those of us who DO have a job might like it and not want to be one of ninety people working for a wind farm closing in January. Or a fracking company, so...what now?