This
No - it means we have a healthy, mature democracy where nutcases, lunatics, liars, and fools do not have a major political party under their sway.
The UK electorate would run at speed from any party that thought that these issues were important.
The Republicans would poll comfortably below the Monster Raving Loony Party.
God. If only there was some kind of technology that enabled us to search the internet instead of relying on clues provided by passing strangers.
Wow. If the statistics in the wikipedia article regarding this are to be believed, then colour me surprised. I’ve been under the impression that the majority of Americans are really into going out and voting, but only 54%?
54% was a 40-year high, too.
My point was not to call you a liberal, it was, and is, that the usual suspects on this board are every bit as rabid, foaming at the mouth, batshit insane as the Limbaugh/Beck/Coulter crowd. Someone even just quoted Der Trihs over the top bullshit with approval in this thread. Everyone on the right is not evil/immoral/ignorant/wrong/makers of kitty sausage/baby killers etc, and the constant barrage of drivel from those usual suspects is tiresome.
Then you made your point badly - you implied that my viewpoint was derived from blind partisanship when it is actually yours that is. Is there ever a point where you’d say “huh, I guess the Republicans are using more lies/dirty tactics/lowered discourse than the Democrats”? Where would that point be? If not, then your views are entirely ideological - “blind partisanship” - because you are not critically evaluating the facts of the situation, but merely stating how you wish to view the world.
Der Trihs is in no way typical and is one of the people who actually harms his side by being on it. It’s not fair to use him as the standard when it’s obvious he stands out as much as he does even on fairly liberal leaning message board.
Der Trihs is not an elected public official and doesn’t have a nationally syndicated radio show.
Unless I’ve missed something.
That is the difference - it’s not that liberals don’t lie (we do, and just as often and with as much conviction as conservatives).
It’s that the mainstream representatives of “our side” don’t, or at least not to the same degree. There are no Democratic Congressmen repeating anything so foolish as the birther nonsense, though there certainly are Democratic voters doing so.
I will concede that I made the point poorly. I don’t agree that I’m blindly partisan, and for that matter, I don’t agree that Republicans are using lower discourse than Democrats. I am frustrated that many on this board seek to paint everyone to the right of John Lennon with the Limbaugh brush.
What blind partisan would?
:rolleyes:
I’ve got over 6K posts here. Anyone that’s been paying attention has seen me argue issues favored by different sides–pro gun, pro gay marriage, pro choice, pro lower taxes, pro smaller government, pro criminal trials for GITMO detainees, etc.
On the other hand, as a Bears fan, you must have an innate predisposition to blind loyalty. 
I don’t know you that well. There are still different degrees of partisanship less than “blindly partisan”. I don’t doubt that as you say in a lesser post you take positions which aren’t common amongst Republicans on specific issues, and that’s cool. But I think the fundamental issue of partisanship is that people fundamentally view themselves being as part of a side - and their first instinct on an issue they are unfamiliar with is not to cricitically consider it and find how it fits in with the rest of their beliefs, but to take and defense whatever position their side and attack the position of the other side reflexively. It’s a very strong bias and I think you’re subject to that to some extent - because I don’t think anyone who had a neutral point of view and wasn’t at least significant partisan could possibly conclude that the current language, tactics, and talking points of the Republican party are equal to the way the current ones of the Democrats.
There are so many examples here I don’t even know where to start. During the presidential campaigns, the McCain campaign softly rejected the “he’s a secret muslim communist sleeper cell agent” angle, knowing that a strong rejection of that sort of talk would alienate some of his more retarded base. Palin stirred up this sentiment as much as she could without blatantly inciting violence. On the other side, Obama ran what is probably the most clean campaign in the history of US presidential politics. He talked to his audience with substance, as if they were adults, and not in easy to digest (but hollow) talking points and thought terminating cliches.
We have elected officials questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s right to lead, implicitly alleging a conspiracy regarding his birth certificate. We have Republican congressmen who’ve openly admitted that health care in the US needs reform, and that the reforms the democrats were proposing did a lot of good, and yet said “not under this president”. In other words - they would rather have the country damaged and everyone worse off than to have Obama possibly be considered a successful president. Don’t believe that? Do you remember the images of conservative pundits and congressmen jumping for joy when the US was eliminated from olympic hosting process?
I think this is a seperate issue. The level of discourse amongst our actual elected officials is independent from the level of discourse between random message board users. But even factoring that in - the level of discourse here is far higher than average. On other message boards that don’t even relate to politics I’m constantly hearing some outraged retard repeating Glen Beck talking points in places where it’s totally inappropriate. SOCIALISM! OH GOD SOCIALISM EVERYWHERE! The level of discourse on the SDMB, flawed as it may be some time, is still way higher than just about anywhere else, and I do think you exaggerate your claims in that regard.
See here’s the thing: I don’t think Conservatives are bad. George Will, I respect. I disagree with him, but I respect him. I don’t agree with most things Conservatives believe in. But this current batch of “conservativsm” doesn’t believe in anything other than that they should be in power. So they’ll say or do anything to get themselves back in power, even if it means lying repeatedly. For example, they only believe in small, limited government when they don’t control it.
The people I paint with the Limbaugh/Hitler/idiot brush aren’t true conservatives. They’re anti-intellectual, hateful, close-minded and use fear and victimization as motivation. Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Alan Keyes, Bill O’Reilly, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney. These people have co-opted the terms “conservative” and “Christian” and “Republican” and abused them beyond all recognition. And unfortunately, the Republican party and GOP politicians are begining to bow to their wishes and spout their talking points.
Tens of millions of new people getting medical care in the United States? I had no idea the health care bill was going to increase our population so significantly.
Hmm, it would take a long time for them all to get here, wouldn’t it? And some of the people who came would probably be doctors and nurses and stuff. I’m pretty sure we could handle the increase. You must have meant the tens of millions who will be made sick by passing the bill.
Well, I know we’re the most powerful nation on Earth, but I don’t think the President’s signature on a piece of paper can really cause widespread illness. Oh, sure, some headaches and the occasional rash, but nothing requiring hospitalization. Wait, now I think I understand; you meant tens of millions of people who are already here, already sick, but don’t have access to care.
No, you said it would lead to increased rationing. If tens of millions of people who don’t have health care suddenly have it, we certainly can’t call that rationing.
I admit it, I’m stumped. Who are these tens of millions?
Truth does not have a liberal bias although conservatives certainly seem to think it does.
I sometimes wonder if this is not ultimately due to the degree of sports fanaticism in the US, particularly with local or college sports teams. The public is inculcated from an early age into dividing up into “my team/your team” You cheer for “your team” no matter what even if they suck or they are proven to be cheaters. This then translates into politics.
Sage Rat also has a point with anti-intellectualism. There seems to be a significant group in the US that actively disparages any intellectual activity. “Book learnin’” is put down. Those that pursue intellectual activities are put down as “nerds” or “losers”, or when in politics “wonks”. The US public would rather elect someone who was “one of the boys”, rather than a well studied intellectual.
You don’t? Why not? Which Democrat accused a Republican of pallin’ around with terrorists? Which Democratic attack ads morphed a Republican into bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or Hitler or whoever it was? Whose argument for continuing to occupy Iraq was a rah-rah “Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”? Which news channel puts up goose-stepping soldiers on a greenscreen while the host blubbers on about how Republicans are fascists? How much time and money did Democrats spend chasing after imaginary murders and drug deals out of a desperation to impeach Bush?
I don’t think it’s possible to engage in discourse lower than that of Republicans. The worst the Democrats could do is the same thing, but more of it. I don’t see it happening.
If you mean ‘as opposed to UK/Europe’ you must never have met the soccer fans that dwell here. And there’s a lot of them. In fact, people can often appear more passionate about sport than politics here. The football team of the town I live in usually does pretty poorly, but there are many people who religiously buy season tickets and cheer them on anyway. All for that glorious feeling when they finally win.
I think it’s the issues the US is wrestling with right now. They’re big ones. In the UK having a UHC is just a given. The biggest worry I have with a Conservative MP getting in is reduced spending on the NHS, there’s nothing even remotely close to the idea of it being reformed.
But we do seem less inclined to be stationary politically speaking. I don’t consider myself, and don’t know anybody who identifies themselves as, Liberal, Labour, Conservative or any of the other parties. I vote for whoever I feel will do the best job in the coming years, or who will be introducing things I want. Political discourse with friends and work colleges happens, but it’s never very heated. It’s not apathy, it’s just we don’t have very much that is particularly life changing happening in our politics. This time around will be a little more interesting, but again, it’s not like David Cameron is planning on doing something crazy like make handguns legal or ban abortions.
But, at least in the British situation, they can always focus public and political and governmental attention on the really important things like economic and taxation policies, without nonissues/pseudoissues like intelligent design crowding the field.