The power to impose that minority view on others was also mentioned as a factor, do not ignore it.
And of course I see that that is where your effort is going, it is not really effective as none of those minority groups have any powerful allies in government. The moment any of those groups gets the ears of a powerful group is when we will have to deal with them.
By bones’ standards, it seems, there cannot be such thing as extremist politics, because anything non-marginal enough to show politically is not extremist.
The fact that these groups have many elected representatives who support their positions necessarily means those positions are not extreme. They are mainstream among their constituents. When the Tea Party gets 80 representatives elected, their positions and their supporters are no longer extreme. They are definitely a minority faction, but they enjoy more support than say, the Libertarian, Green or Independent parties (I think).
By definition a position can’t enjoy wide spread support and simultaneously be extreme. The only way that is possible is if you redefine the word “extreme”. You’re perfectly able to do that, but then conversations quickly become nonsense since you can just make up whatever you want at that point.
I stated my definition in post #185. You’ve avoided sharing your definition in lieu of further posturing. Why is that?
I already showed evidence coming from polls, the point stands, many moderate republicans (and would say many independents and democrats) are not even aware of how extreme their representatives are compared with what most of the people they represent think.
Not so, you only showed that you missed the point, when one looks at what the majority of the people think there are even Republicans in that majority that see that not doing anything about controlling our emissions at the federal level is foolish, but that is what most Republicans in congress are doing now.
Uh, no, that is what you are doing, for example, many of the items you mentioned like the flat earthers **are **extremists, it is just that they do not ping in the radar as they do not have any support to speak of.
And as for having plenty of support, the reality is that many of those tea partiers that got elected in 2010 got help from astroturf groups.
Jesus, what a boring fucking discussion. You folks are letting Bone define the discussion and are therefore losing the war. Stop it. He (she?) is trying to distract you and is, so far, succeeding. Ignore him (her).
What an extremist thing to say.
9/11 Trutherism might have got one-in-four support at one time but extreme it always was and remains.
Still no definition? What an odd way to discuss something to refuse to define or explain how you’re using a term. Complete now with unrelated random linkstoo. I suppose that’s better than haphazard bolding. Why the avoidance?
Well, he is right I think, I only post to inform others about how wrong you are. BTW a definition was posted already, so I have to say that what you are doing was seen also coming from climate change deniers. A definition is not enough. And then it is just to the JAQs races.
I’d like to suggest that the word “extreme” be dropped in order to be replaced by something less relative and more aptly descriptive.
How about “insane”? Does that fit the bill? 
I prefer “full-blown whackaloon.”
Can we at least agree that, regardless of poll numbers, a thing can be extremist just because it is preposterous? Both Trutherism and Birtherism meet that standard.
The extremism isn’t in the positions, it’s in the unwillingness to compromise. But they are learning, and the most obstinate are losing their jobs.
Notice that a budget got passed and even many of the Tea Partiers are saying to just raise the debt limit.
The Tea Party is starting to grow up.
Basically, yeah the Tea Party is financed and backed by these local notables, but their voting base is the salt of the Earth folk, which explains why they rely on a lot of this religious rhetoric. Religious rhetoric in the South screams populist to me. I can understand why certain people would disagree though.
Folks like Gigo contradict themselves. Supposedly the astroturf groups run things, yet when the Tea Party acts up, it’s because of the rubes.
No, it depends on **what **rubes we talk about, I can not help to read that “salt of the earth folk” line and not think about Gene Wilder on Blazing Saddles describing what that bigoted kind of people.
As I pointed before many of the elected rubes like Inhof are useful because powerful groups know that they can depend on the anti-scientific nature of those elected rubes to not see anything wrong, so the bottom line of the fossil fuel companies will benefit a lot.
Of course not. That would mean you would be able to determine what is and what isn’t extreme any way you like. You have still failed to define how you are using the term - unless your definition is that something is extreme if it is preposterous. Extreme positions must be viewed with respect to what is mainstream. A position can be both factually incorrect and held by a majority which would make that position mainstream.
The idea that you can label something extreme simply because you don’t like it independent of its relative popularity tortures the English language and is laughable. Newspeak at its finest really.
And that is why I add conditionals like what science says about those extremist positions.