By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So... how about that Tea Party?

lostintheodyssey on 24 May 2010
Mr Khan said:
makingmusic476 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
 

All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck. 

How can you expect a government elected by and consisting of the people to be morally superior to the general public?  If a majority of the people don't want to act this way, then why are they electing officials that will force them to act this way?

Because that's the nature of a Republic. We have better people than us making our choices for us, and that while the People are responsible enough to choose who should be making those choices, we are not responsible enough to make those choices ourselves. Which i agree with, largely. People can be scarily stupid, and while there needs to be a popular voice in government, true populism never really ended up well.


Exactly you explained what I was trying to say but you did a much better job than I could have ever did.



Around the Network
lostintheodyssey on 24 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
badgenome said:
lostintheodyssey said:

You have more faith than me then. All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck.

Perhaps I have more faith in people than you do, but you have infinitely more faith in the federal government than I do. I'm not really inclined to go into a point by point response to your lengthy post, but suffice to say that I fear the feds (and the rapid expansion of the federal government) far more than I do some fringe-of-a-fringe-of-a-fringe group like the fucking Klan.

Also, this was posted earlier in the thread but maybe you missed it:

The tea party is pretty representative of America, demographically speaking. There are proportionately less blacks, but that is to be expected given their extremely high approval for Obama.

You do know that polls can be manipulated to show anything that the user wants right?  Hispanics are a larger minority than blacks they were estimated at 13.7% in 2003 and are probably over 15% now.  So you mean to tell me that the tea party has 13.7% of hispanics in the party and x amounts of asians, biracials etc I seriously doubt it.  So let's assume and it's a big assumption that they represent america demographically they won't win an election over a democrat unless the state is extremely conservative.  The tea party seems to be splitting the republican party up in to two factions those that are extremely to the right and those that are moderate.  The United States in the past 20 years has been either moderately to the left or moderately to the right and the Tea Party is too far to the right to be taken seriously on a national stage.  I doubt they will have a serious contender for the presidency in 2012 and I doubt they will win a senate seat.

Also why do you fear the feds and the expansion of the government I hear people say this all the time but they never give a reason for it?

 

 

Except... the Tea-party doesn't care about social issues.

 

They would elect a Black Gay Senator who has forced people to have aboritions so long as that person is going to lower government costs.


They're fiscally conservative above all else.  Which most of America is.  Which is why a lot of people try to paint them as fringe lunatics... because they're scared, because they in reality fall right in the middle of Republicans and Democrats.

Because they're fiscally responsible and are willing to compromise.


If any people from the left come over, you'd end up with a Fiscally conservative, socially moderate party....

They wouldn't lose any elections with a makeup like that.


I don't know Bob Dole and Colin Powell were middle of the road republicans who knew how to compromise. They were well liked by both republicans and democrats as far as my knowledge goes no one ever painted them as fringe lunatics.  Bill Clinton was a middle of the road democrat who knew how to compromise and got legislation passed despite republicans holding a majority in congress he just didn't know how to keep it in his pants.

I'm not saying there isn't some bias against teapartyers my question is just why is it so strong if they fall in line with what most of america values are?



badgenome on 24 May 2010
lostintheodyssey said:

Now on to the polls the reason I didn't link them the other times is because I was using firefox and for some reason I can't paste when I use that browser.  Also one of the polls did show that at least earlier in the year they did have 10% of hispanic votes even more recent polls show that they have lost that support so I will admit I was wrong because I doubted they ever had that kind of support.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1109a4TeaParty.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf

 

So two of them show the tea party to be considerably whiter (~90%), and two of them are very close to the survey you so distrust (within the margin of error). Scathing stuff! I'm truly humbled.



lostintheodyssey on 24 May 2010
badgenome said:
lostintheodyssey said:

Now on to the polls the reason I didn't link them the other times is because I was using firefox and for some reason I can't paste when I use that browser.  Also one of the polls did show that at least earlier in the year they did have 10% of hispanic votes even more recent polls show that they have lost that support so I will admit I was wrong because I doubted they ever had that kind of support.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1109a4TeaParty.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf

 

So two of them show the tea party to be considerably whiter (~90%), and two of them are very close to the survey you so distrust (within the margin of error). Scathing stuff! I'm truly humbled.


I will ignore your sarcasm and say what I said before which is it's better to look at multiple polls then draw a conclusion.  None of those polls are right the truth is probably somewhere in the middle when you average all of those polls.

But answer the question I asked at the beginning have you ever voted for anyone other than a republican? 



Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
makingmusic476 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
 

All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck. 

How can you expect a government elected by and consisting of the people to be morally superior to the general public?  If a majority of the people don't want to act this way, then why are they electing officials that will force them to act this way?

Well if you have noticed most candidates don't give away where they stand on the issues until they get elected.  They take a middle of the road approach and they also switch positions on a issue sometime after getting elected.  When Lincoln got elected even though he didn't approve of slavery he said he would not end it he just wouldn't allow it to spread to the new territories.  After the civil war started due to south carolina trying to secede from the union he saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by using the war to free the slaves.

But you asked a good question and it does happen.  In recent years polls have shown that most americans are in favor of legislation that prevents illegal immigration and terrorists from coming in to the country even if it discriminates against hispanics and people of arab descent.  Of course the federal government isn't going to pass any legislation that discriminates on those groups though.

Polls have recently came out saying that most americans approve of the immigration bill in arizona even though it has gotten a lot of opposition the majority seem to support it.  A few days ago Obama mentioned that discrimination shouldn't be considered acceptable when trying to capture illegal immigrants so go figure.

 

So... we can trust these people to do good... because they lie to us directly to our faces when they want us to vote for them?

That's your arguement. 

Also, you should REALLY do some research on Lincoln... because your interpretation of why he got rid of slavery... is just kinda funny.

I said they take a middle of the road approach until they get elected not giving away their positions.  For example candidates say they are for family values which sounds good but they haven't given anything away about what those values are.  They say they are for education and reform which are populist messages but they give absolutely nothing away about what they are going to do.  While they do that they also try to show that they are the most qualified for the position that's why governors tout that they have executive experience running their respective states.  Some tout a expansive educational background to show that they have intellectual capacity to take on tough challenges.

Which part about Lincoln did I get wrong?  Was it the part where I said he intially made the civil war about preserving the union or was it the part where I said he seized the opportunity to free the slaves?

The "seized the oppurtunity to free the slaves" part.  He didn't do it because he wanted to save the slaves.  He did it beacuse it was a political gambit that forced the British and French to withhold support from the south.  By reframing the Civil War about slavery he kept foreign support out of the war.

Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves, thought they were inferior, and planned to send them all back to Africa.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
Mr Khan said:
makingmusic476 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
 

All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck. 

How can you expect a government elected by and consisting of the people to be morally superior to the general public?  If a majority of the people don't want to act this way, then why are they electing officials that will force them to act this way?

Because that's the nature of a Republic. We have better people than us making our choices for us, and that while the People are responsible enough to choose who should be making those choices, we are not responsible enough to make those choices ourselves. Which i agree with, largely. People can be scarily stupid, and while there needs to be a popular voice in government, true populism never really ended up well.

That isn't the nature of a Republic though.  Republic's exist because direct democracies are slow and not everbody has time to be informed on every issue.

Politicians are in no way better people... in a lot of ways they are worse people then the average person.  They're just needed.  Though less and less needed do to things like the internet and the spreading of books and of education as people find themselves more and more well informed on issues.



Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
lostintheodyssey said:
badgenome said:
lostintheodyssey said:

Now on to the polls the reason I didn't link them the other times is because I was using firefox and for some reason I can't paste when I use that browser.  Also one of the polls did show that at least earlier in the year they did have 10% of hispanic votes even more recent polls show that they have lost that support so I will admit I was wrong because I doubted they ever had that kind of support.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1109a4TeaParty.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf

 

So two of them show the tea party to be considerably whiter (~90%), and two of them are very close to the survey you so distrust (within the margin of error). Scathing stuff! I'm truly humbled.


I will ignore your sarcasm and say what I said before which is it's better to look at multiple polls then draw a conclusion.  None of those polls are right the truth is probably somewhere in the middle when you average all of those polls.

But answer the question I asked at the beginning have you ever voted for anyone other than a republican? 

That's a statistically fallacy you are making.  It is NOT better to look at multiple polls.


I've already shown in this thread Rausserman is the most accurate source when you compare real data despite them skewing right when you compare surveys.  In otherwords... polling skews towards a liberal perspective.  By comparing multiple sources, you end up with a liberal viewpoint.



badgenome on 24 May 2010
lostintheodyssey said:
badgenome said:
lostintheodyssey said:

Now on to the polls the reason I didn't link them the other times is because I was using firefox and for some reason I can't paste when I use that browser.  Also one of the polls did show that at least earlier in the year they did have 10% of hispanic votes even more recent polls show that they have lost that support so I will admit I was wrong because I doubted they ever had that kind of support.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1109a4TeaParty.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf

 

So two of them show the tea party to be considerably whiter (~90%), and two of them are very close to the survey you so distrust (within the margin of error). Scathing stuff! I'm truly humbled.


I will ignore your sarcasm and say what I said before which is it's better to look at multiple polls then draw a conclusion.  None of those polls are right the truth is probably somewhere in the middle when you average all of those polls.

But answer the question I asked at the beginning have you ever voted for anyone other than a republican? 

Okay, so then the tea party goes from being frighteningly white to merely a little whiter than society as a whole. Which, again, is not surprising since (1) blacks overwhelmingly support Obama and (2) whites bear more of the tax burden and thus will be more keen to reel in government spending.

And I'm not sure why you care or what it has to do with anything, but yes, I have.



Final-Fan on 24 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
I've already shown in this thread Rausserman is the most accurate source when you compare real data despite them skewing right when you compare surveys.  In otherwords... polling skews towards a liberal perspective.  By comparing multiple sources, you end up with a liberal viewpoint.

I've heard that Rasmussen skewed right all through election season, but when the big night drew nigh it came more in line with the others -- that being the point at which you are judging them and they were closest.  Not true? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Mr Khan on 24 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
makingmusic476 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
 

All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck. 

How can you expect a government elected by and consisting of the people to be morally superior to the general public?  If a majority of the people don't want to act this way, then why are they electing officials that will force them to act this way?

Because that's the nature of a Republic. We have better people than us making our choices for us, and that while the People are responsible enough to choose who should be making those choices, we are not responsible enough to make those choices ourselves. Which i agree with, largely. People can be scarily stupid, and while there needs to be a popular voice in government, true populism never really ended up well.

That isn't the nature of a Republic though.  Republic's exist because direct democracies are slow and not everbody has time to be informed on every issue.

Politicians are in no way better people... in a lot of ways they are worse people then the average person.  They're just needed.  Though less and less needed do to things like the internet and the spreading of books and of education as people find themselves more and more well informed on issues.

That definitely came out wrong on my part, when i read it back. The gist of it stays the same, though. Certainly they are not *better* people, no man-gods or supermen, but i'm of the opinion that we elect people to do for us, not to reflect us (thus i feel that Scott Brown has been perfectly within his mandate to vote the way he has, while others feel that he has betrayed a trust by not voting the way the voters elected him to vote).

Politicians are bound by a higher code of conduct to a certain point. They can't enact some of the highly irresponsible ideas that their constituents adhere to.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.