Where was this "reality-based point of view" when the other party had complete federal control for two years?
Printable View
Where was this "reality-based point of view" when the other party had complete federal control for two years?
You really don't understand the dynamics of Washington. Even if Karl Marx himself was President, only a limited amount could get done. Part of that is due to the system as it is designed, part of it is due to complete capture of government by large corporations and the rich. The Capture of BOTH parties. The Democratic party today is to the right of Richard Nixon. The Republican party today is basically the Joe McCarthy party.
So yea, the reality based point of view is sadly very limited. We saw that early in Obama's term, when he correctly pointed out that Gitmo is a stain on this nation and a rallying cry for those who would do us harm. When he tried to close it, "leaders" in both parties pissed their pants and claimed that the terrorists would start relaying messages to terror cells in eyeblinks and shit. That's just one example. We are fucked.
That was my point. Lack of reality isn't limited by party line.
Well, a party right of Richard Nixon is useful in a two party system. A party composed of paranoid, nasty reactionaries with a bottomless victim complex and delusions of grandeur is, I would say, not very useful.
edit: ESPECIALLY if you have a press which is hellbent on defining the "moderate" viewpoint as being between these two poles. That theory (sort of) works if one party is left and one is right, not if one party is right and one is crazy right.
What? Where are you getting your numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Obviously moderate is relative yadayada, I know I don't have to explain that to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Where the 50/50 line of moderation is defined, generally speaking, is at the point between both candidates in a 2 party system. It represents where a candidate needs to go to get a optimal number of votes in a simplified system.
If enough people voted far left, I think that would either force the dems to swing more left to reclaim the fringe, or swing right to approach the new median point.
If the repubs put up a sane candidate, I'm going to vote far left. If they vote in a wacko, then sadly dem again for me.
Using that definition, the entire concept of moderate only exists during the time between the end of the primaries and the end of the general election. That is the only time there are two candidates to draw a line between. But that is obviously not the case. Moderates exist with or without candidates, so the point between candidates cannot define moderates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I suggest that moderate is the point between the extremities of the beliefs of the people. The problem we face now is that the candidates only even begin to cater to one side of the people. The opposition isn't even in the race.
We should crush 99.9% of the population into poverty and fight 3 wars without raising funds.
You fascist nut job. We should crush 99% of the population into poverty and fight 1 war without doing anything to fund it.
Surely then moderation would be crushing 99.45% of the people while fighting 2 wars we can't afford. Or not.
That sounds about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Yes, this is basically what I am saying. If the political system is only catering to people right of Richard Nixon, we have a real problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Of course, when the system is so unrepresentative, it makes sense that the usual theories on this wouldn't apply.
But the media and political system keep acting like all is well, like we have a functioning political debate in DC. Of course, that's by design, since the media and political system stand to benefit from a debate structured that way.
Attachment 63193
Rick Perry in Corndog Scandal.