Bliz Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 start paying MUCH less attention to conspiracy theorists. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover President Obama is using a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as "Delphi" to coerce Americans into accepting his plan for a United Nations-run communist dictatorship in which suburbanites will be forcibly relocated to cities. That's according to a four-hour briefing delivered to Republican state senators at the Georgia state Capitol last month.On October 11, at a closed-door meeting of the Republican caucus convened by the body's majority leader, Chip Rogers, a tea party activist told Republican lawmakers that Obama was mounting this most diabolical conspiracy. The event—captured on tape by a member of the Athens-based watchdog Better Georgia (who was removed from the room after 52 minutes)—had been billed as an information session on Agenda 21, a nonbinding UN agreement that commits member nations to promote sustainable development. In the eyes of conservative activists, Agenda 21 is a nefarious plot that includes forcibly relocating non-urban-dwellers and prescribing mandatory contraception as a means of curbing population growth. The invitation to the Georgia state Senate event noted the presentation would explain: "How pleasant sounding names are fostering a Socialist plan to change the way we live, eat, learn, and communicate to 'save the earth.'" [video of the presentation at the link] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 start paying MUCH less attention to conspiracy theorists.http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover Ok. That story is a really, really sad indictment of the Georgia GOP. Not the voters, but the actual leaders of the party. Good lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Ok. That story is a really, really sad indictment of the Georgia GOP. Not the voters, but the actual leaders of the party. Good lord. Well, you're assuming its not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Well, you're assuming its not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I had hope for the future of the GOP, and American politics in general, a few days ago when it sounded like Boehner was willing to deal. After listening to Romney's remarks about buying votes, and the Republicans out at that conference in Nevada, I'm much less hopeful. I mean, many of them are seemingly doubling down on the same things that lost them the current election. Bob McDonnell was talking about how they didn't get their message across effectively concerning their values, which translates to "we're going to run on the same things, but be even louder next time." But you know what, that's fine. The Republican strategy of "here's the platform, get on board or get out" used to work because their platform won them whites (and white males) by large enough numbers to compensate for losing minorities (and women). That era is over. If they don't realize that, it's entirely on them. Democrats will probably hold onto the Senate in 2014, win the White House and House back in 2016 (and might even expand their lead in the Senate since all the 2010 Republicans will be up), and we'll actually be able to get something done once Reid makes some minor changes to the filibuster. Big tent has officially won the electoral war, small tent is dying a slow painful death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The Republican strategy of "here's the platform, get on board or get out" used to work because their platform won them whites (and white males) by large enough numbers to compensate for losing minorities (and women). That era is over. If they don't realize that, it's entirely on them. Democrats will probably hold onto the Senate in 2014, win the White House and House back in 2016 (and might even expand their lead in the Senate since all the 2010 Republicans will be up), and we'll actually be able to get something done once Reid makes some minor changes to the filibuster.Big tent has officially won the electoral war, small tent is dying a slow painful death. The GOP will not lose the House until 2022. The gerrymandering of 2010 was too effective for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The GOP will not lose the House until 2022. The gerrymandering of 2010 was too effective for that. Can you only redraw district lines after the census? I think that if the dems increase their governors they could redraw the districts earlier, right? there's always lawsuits too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The GOP will not lose the House until 2022. The gerrymandering of 2010 was too effective for that. I think there's enough seats in play that Democrats have a good shot *IF* Republicans double down on their current strategy. There will definitely be a near majority for the next few election cycles, but I think they'll start seeing a chipping away of their numbers bit by bit, especially if the economy improves at all. Many Republicans are holding on in close districts because of economic hardship, if things start improving over the next two years, they swing back to the Democrats. Maybe 2014 is too soon, but I think it's very possible, if the Republicans don't alter their platform, that we'll see a slim Democratic majority prior to 2022. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Can you only redraw district lines after the census? I think that if the dems increase their governors they could redraw the districts earlier, right?there's always lawsuits too. It generally happens after the census. And there is no way that a state legislature controlled by either party is going to vote to allow the districts to be redrawn (thus costing them their own seats) unless they have to. Lawsuits only work in limited circumstances. Gerrymandering for political advantage is not illegal - only when it crosses over into racial discrimination does the Voting Rights Act come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 .Maybe 2014 is too soon, but I think it's very possible, if the Republicans don't alter their platform, that we'll see a slim Democratic majority prior to 2022. Actually, it depends on how the immigration thing plays out. If the Repubs halt any reform; then they will suffer in 2014. Maybe not enough to tip control away but just enough to put them in position to have control again in 2016. I can see the Dems winning big in 2016. Hillary winning the White House, The Dems recover from whatever losses they had in 2014 in the Senate and taking over the house in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 I was looking at potential 2016 contenders as posted on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 I would love for Jesse Ventura to run in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Can you only redraw district lines after the census? I think that if the dems increase their governors they could redraw the districts earlier, right?there's always lawsuits too. Read that The Atlantic article I posted on redrawing districts, it's very illuminating how it's done—while not illegal, they are toeing a fine line. The GOP, as I'm sure the Dems have one too, have a consultant travel the country to states that are up for redistricting and advises them on how to draw the lines. Go too hard core and you'll run into legal challenges—this seems to be the lesson that the state parties are pressed to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Well this shows exactly what the GOP's problem is: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/how-diverse-are-the-house-committee-leaders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 "The GOP nominates Whitey McMightywhite from Whiteyburg to be Whitest (or "chairman") of White Interests (committee name) and enwhiten the White House, where it seems something is still terribly awry." :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Good to see the Repubs have named the Chairwhites of all the committees. It woulda been different if Mitt won and we were using binders of black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Found this article via a friend's Facebook link. It's a rather long piece about a self-described lifelong conservative being kicked out of the party for coming to conclusions that the Party didn't like. (A good part of the article is simply the guy listing his Republican pedigree.) The American Conservative: Revenge of the Reality-Based Community My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong. I know that it’s unattractive and bad form to say “I told you so” when one’s advice was ignored yet ultimately proved correct. But in the wake of the Republican election debacle, it’s essential that conservatives undertake a clear-eyed assessment of who on their side was right and who was wrong. Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.I’m not going to beat around the bush and pretend I don’t have a vested interest here. Frankly, I think I’m at ground zero in the saga of Republicans closing their eyes to any facts or evidence that conflict with their dogma. Rather than listen to me, they threw me under a bus. To this day, I don’t think they understand that my motives were to help them avoid the permanent decline that now seems inevitable. For more than 30 years, I was very comfortable within the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I still recall supporting Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater as a schoolchild. As a student, I was a member of Young Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom at the height of the Vietnam War, when conservatives on college campuses mostly kept their heads down. In graduate school, I wrote a master’s thesis on how Franklin Roosevelt covered up his responsibility for the Pearl Harbor attack—long a right-wing obsession. My first real job out of graduate school was working for Ron Paul the first time he was elected to Congress in a special election in 1976. (He lost that same year and came back two years later.) In those days, he was the only Tea Party-type Republican in Congress. After Paul’s defeat, I went to work for Congressman Jack Kemp and helped draft the famous Kemp-Roth tax bill, which Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1981. I made important contributions to the development of supply-side economics and detailed my research in a 1981 book, Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action. Suddenly, I felt adrift, politically and intellectually. I now saw many things I had long had misgivings about, such as all the Republican pork-barrel projects that Bush refused to veto, in sharper relief. They were no longer exceptions to conservative governance but its core during the Bush 43 years.I began writing columns that were highly critical of Bush’s policies and those of Republicans in Congress—all based on solid conservative principles. In other words, I was criticizing them from the inside, from the right. In 2004 I got to know the journalist Ron Suskind, whose book The Price of Loyalty I had praised in a column. He and I shared an interest in trying to figure out what made Bush tick. Neither of us ever figured it out. A couple of weeks before the 2004 election, Suskind wrote a long article for the New York Times Magazine that quoted some of my comments to him that were highly critical of Bush and the drift of Republican policy. The article is best remembered for his quote from an anonymous White House official dismissing critics like me for being “the reality-based community.” The day after the article appeared, my boss called to chew me out, saying that Karl Rove had called him personally to complain about it. I promised to be more circumspect in the future. Interestingly, a couple of days after the Suskind article appeared, I happened to be at a reception for some right-wing organization that many of my think tank friends were also attending. I assumed I would get a lot of grief for my comments in the Suskind article and was surprised when there was none at all. Finally, I started asking people about it. Not one person had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything. They all viewed it as having as much credibility as Pravda and a similar political philosophy as well. Some were indignant that I would even suspect them of reading a left-wing rag such as the New York Times. I was flabbergasted. Until that moment I had not realized how closed the right-wing mind had become. Even assuming that my friends’ view of the Times’ philosophy was correct, which it most certainly was not, why would they not want to know what their enemy was thinking? This was my first exposure to what has been called “epistemic closure” among conservatives—living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction. It's a long article. And almost entirely personal history. But I thought people might like to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Your reality is 4 yrs of O Bruce...enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 .. It's a long article. And almost entirely personal history. But I thought people might like to read it. Interesting stuff, thanks or sharing. A couple of thoughts. I really see value in conservatism and I hold conservative views on a number of issues. Too bad the GOP has nothing to do with conservatism. Monopolies in the media are really dangerous... I wonder what course the history will take in relation to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I really see a value in conservatism and I hold conservative views on a number of issues. Too bad the GOP has nothing to do with conservatism. Oh, I certainly agree. Although I'm kind of at where the intersection of conservationism and libertarianism used to intersect. In the 70's-80's, I voted Republican. I didn't like all of their positions, (I was anti-war, and have always favored legalizing things like porn, pot, and prostitution). But I tend to think of myself as tough on crime, and believed that welfare needed to be brought under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Oh, I certainly agree. Although I'm kind of at where the intersection of conservationism and libertarianism used to intersect. In the 70's-80's, I voted Republican. I didn't like all of their positions, (I was anti-war, and have always favored legalizing things like porn, pot, and prostitution). But I tend to think of myself as tough on crime, and believed that welfare needed to be brought under control. Show me a candidate that believes in this, and I'll show them my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Oh, I certainly agree. Although I'm kind of at where the intersection of conservationism and libertarianism used to intersect. In the 70's-80's, I voted Republican. I didn't like all of their positions, (I was anti-war, and have always favored legalizing things like porn, pot, and prostitution). But I tend to think of myself as tough on crime, and believed that welfare needed to be brought under control. For me it was a more traditional evolution from a youthful "they are all full of crap" position as I matured... My biggest mistake was probably not really understanding complex internal dynamics of large organizations where people fight for turf, budgets, etc, resulting things like reducing costs and delivering value not always being high on the list of priorities. I did not change my positions on the role of government all that much, but I did realize that need to keep a watchful eye on it. ---------- Post added November-29th-2012 at 08:18 PM ---------- Show me a candidate that believes in this, and I'll show them my vote. and I'll show you a candidate who fails to win a primary Seriously though, this is so strange. It seems that in politics nowadays you have to oppose the other guys simply because they are the other guys. It sucks for pragmatists who do not mind taking things that work from wherever they come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 It seems that in politics nowadays you have to oppose the other guys simply because they are the other guys. It sucks for pragmatists who do not mind taking things that work from wherever they come from. Things don't ever truly change (and this is another case where I take any excuse to post a favorite ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Honestly, the GOP doesn't need to be fixed. The various coalitions that make up the GOP were never really compatible. The party needs to die its natural death. Yes, the Dems will be dominating for a while but eventually there will be a viable national alternative to the Dems. Sorry but the GOP isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Honestly, the GOP doesn't need to be fixed. The various coalitions that make up the GOP were never really compatible. The party needs to die its natural death. Yes, the Dems will be dominating for a while but eventually there will be a viable national alternative to the Dems. Sorry but the GOP isn't it. Due to lack of party unity, Dems can be a viable national alternative to themselves but I do not think that's happening any time soon. Whatever happens to the GOP (and I think Obama is doing his best at driving a wedge with his "extend tax cuts for the 98% right now" push), I am having a hard time imagining the GOP just dying. What happens to the unified drivers of the GOP message, the Fox News, the talk radio, etc? What happens to carefully framed issues that still work for so many people? Too much investment has been made. I cannot imagine a natural death for a monster like that, especially if it can still deliver a majority in the House and get support of well over 40% of the population. I just cannot imagine it imploding. Maybe this is due to lack of experience or failure of imagination on my part. Needless to say I am curious to see what happens next. Maybe I should do some research into realistic future scenarios for USA politics. Whatever it is, I'm against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Due to lack of party unity, Dems can be a viable national alternative to themselves but I do not think that's happening any time soon. I am not a member of any organized political party. I, sir, am a Democrat. - Will Rogers. Whatever happens to the GOP (and I think Obama is doing his best at driving a wedge with his "extend tax cuts for the 98% right now" push), I am having a hard time imagining the GOP just dying. What happens to the unified drivers of the GOP message, the Fox News, the talk radio, etc? What happens to carefully framed issues that still work for so many people? Too much investment has been made. I cannot imagine a natural death for a monster like that, especially if it can still deliver a majority in the House and get support of well over 40% of the population. I just cannot imagine it imploding. Maybe this is due to lack of experience or failure of imagination on my part. Needless to say I am curious to see what happens next. Maybe I should do some research into realistic future scenarios for USA politics. Whatever it is, I'm against it The article points out that the GOP will likely retain the House for the next decade (at least), simply due to gerrymandering. I could certainly see the GOP using their control of the House to simply **** things up as much as they can, and then claim it's somebody else's fault. It's what they've been doing for four years, when they didn't even have a majority in either house of Congress. It's what they've been doing in California for decades. And it's been working for them. It's certainly possible that they'll be willing, and able, to simply follow the existing formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.