I see that now, thanks. I was confused by Karrius and his rant against the entire GOP.
The problem is that many or most moderate Republicans are not sicking around to fight the crazed right wing. They are leaving in disgust, or if they are elected to party positions or public office, they are being purged and primaried. They are not going so far as to call themselves “Democrats” – they are now mostly identifying as independents.
So while it’s true that not all Republicans are white wing extremists and racists … yet … that’s the direction they’re heading. And describing the party as such is becoming more accurate, not less.
lance strongarm, you do realize that you yourself, in this very thread, are providing an example of what Karrius is complaining about? It’s almost surreal.
Unless it’s zero, it doesn’t matter. And I’d estimate it’s greater than zero.
(I like the “actively oppose” twist though. Nice.)
Karrius is full of crap though, so that’s a circular argument.
You can’t judge all members of a group by some members of a group. That’s what, among others, racists do. Don’t do it.
I agree. Worse than what you say is that these loons have managed to spread their FUD into more or less rational Republican voters to one degree or another- it’s almost a buffet of lunacy and fear for otherwise reasonable Republicans to pick whatever it is that threatens them personally and run with it. So you may have one bunch of otherwise reasonable and generally centrist Republicans who feel threatened by multiculturalism, and this TP message resonates on that. Another group may be religious, and threatened by the idea of “godless” stuff like gay marriage, transsexuals, etc… becoming mainstream, and they buy into that portion of the FUD. Another group may be threatened by the “liberal media” (less reasonable, but still way left of the TP), and buy in on that basis. In border states, the boogeyman of illegal aliens is something that agitates a lot of Republicans who would otherwise not be so extreme, and the TP FUD plays right to that.
So then when the TP loons raise their banner, they get a lot of tacit and some overt support from the rest of the party, because some portion of their FUD resonates with most everyone. That’s why we don’t quite see as strong or as ruthless of a backlash as we’d otherwise think we’d see- the TP platform doesn’t appeal in whole to very many people at all, but does appeal to some degree to a LOT of Republican voters.
Yeah, I’d say that’s a fair statement. Good analysis, and a good exposure of what the remaining moderates in the GOP face if they won’t fight for their party.
That’s entirely different from what others here have said.
Yeah cuz people can choose which racial group they belong to exactly like people can choose which political group to affiliate themselves with.
Actually, it’s not like that at all.
Uh, no. Sorry. You can’t simply say “if you’re a Republican, you’re a racist, unless you stop being one!”
That’s godawful stupid.
Nobody is responsible for the actions of others. Period.
If the GOP officially declares racism to be in it’s platform, you might have a point.
I suppose you go around saying that Jews are all stingy because some are, and if any Jew doesn’t like that, they should just leave their religion, because they choose to be a Jew. Just as stupid and unfair logic.
What your problem is is that you are assuming, or deliberately holding, that a political party is some kind of centrally controlled thing that has certain views and requirements for membership. No. A party is a loose affiliation of (somewhate) like-minded people, and from those people emerge the leaders and focus of the party, and those differ greatly among those leaders and by region. It is not a club that you join and take responsibility for every little view, position or policy of that club.
We can only judge a group by those of its members we somehow observe.
Well, that’s wrong too, but that’s a different issue.
The point is that you can’t judge an individual member of a group by the other members. Like I said.
I suppose you shouldn’t fucking suppose what I do or don’t go around saying about an ethnic group.
Oh, really? So now one can’t just go around assuming things? Is that it?
You are the one arguing for just this logic. You are the one who argued that one can assume things about any member of a group by the actions of other members, as long as they are capable of leaving that group. It’s your logic.
So tell me why it would be WRONG, according to you, to assume that all Jews are stingy and tell any Jew who doesn’t like it to just leave Judaism (the religion, not the ethnic group - religion, like political party, is a voluntary association after all). Tell me in your own words. Then maybe you’ll figure out what I’ve been saying.
Well, this is sort of bass ackwards, since I’ve already figured out that what your’re saying is nonsense, but here’s the dinosuar-killer sized hole in your comparison:
A political party or a religion is organized and run for the declared purpose of advocating certain ideas, on the merits of which they may properly be judged. When you can provide cites for Saturday synagogue services directing devout devotees to greedily grasp greenbacks, then – and only then – will you have something analogous to the maddened misogynistic mutterings, hateful homophobic harangues, and crazed chauvinistic cacklings that are the subject of this thread.
Why the fuck would you assume that I go around saying things about Jews being stingy? To quote OMGABC, nice straw man.
Jewish people stop practicing or believing all the time, but they’re still Jewish because it’s an ethnicity. So again, I suppose you shouldn’t fucking suppose what I do or don’t go around saying about an ethnic group.
Political groups people choose to affiliate themselves with are not at all the same as this nonsense you’re trying to pull here.
To flip it around for you, saying Democrats are godless atheists or socialists or lazy welfare recipients is NOT the same as saying Jews are stingy. Get it?
What is so extreme about the Tea Party? I wonder if that word is fully understood in present day political discourse. I think it’s mostly used because it sounds bad. The tea party mostly wants to decrease government spending by very small percentages. Maybe lower taxes a bit. Maybe outlaw gay marriage- but I doubt they care too much about this on the federal level. This is what we call extreme in 2014. Some of these people who watch Rachel Maddow and go around calling someone like Paul Ryan extreme because he wants to balance the budget 30 years from now are funny to me. They remind me of the guys in the first Harold and Kumar movie running around yelling extreme. Is the Tea Party extreme or do you just disagree with their policies?
Basically if the full Tea Party platform was adopted it would put as at 2008 levels of spending. EXTREME!!!
This kind of squabbling over labels highlights a major problem in the US. There’s too much tribalism: “I’m in this group and you’re not, so I’m against you”. The focus should be on policy (what are the pros and cons of doing X), not labels (doing X is “progressive” or “liberal” or “conservative” or “racist” or “feminist”, etc). Just stick to why your policy is better or another policy is worse.
Prominent Tea Party office holders have advocated for impeaching and prosecuting the President, and called him un-American, traitorous, communist, and similar slurs. That’s pretty extreme.
Prominent TP office-holders and leaders have called the Democratic party (and members of the party) un-American, traitorous, communist, and similar slurs. That’s also pretty extreme.
In addition, they’ve advocated outlawing gay marriage federally, outlawing abortion (even in cases of rape and incest), they’ve suggested that women bear some responsibility for rape (and spouted ridiculous views on women’s reproductive biology), they’ve advocated that Mosques should not be allowed to be built in various locations, they’ve advocated outlawing Sharia law, and many, many more.
These are extreme positions.
Something called ForAmerica (Brent Bozell is its chairman) is mounting a campaign to oust the Republican leadership. Does this ForAmerica have any connection to the TP? Does anybody know?
That’s not at all the picture I get from the Contract from America, which is nearest thing I’ve yet seen to a TP platform or manifesto (if you know of a more recent or more widely-endorsed one, please let me know).
What part of that isn’t extreme?!