Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Congratulations to Obama and his supportersFollow

#202 Nov 13 2012 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's language in the ACA which waives the two-term limit for African-American presidents with Muslim sounding middle names. That's why Pelosi didn't want anyone to read it before it passed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#203 Nov 13 2012 at 12:00 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
ALCON:
I am in an undisclosed location where adjusting my sig is not possible. Just loading the Asylum page is an exercise in frustration where HTML is the law, internet connectivity and loading times are used as alternatives to waterboarding, and censors/interweb watchdogs monitor all webbiness. On my honor, as soon as I get to where I can put Omega's doohickey in my sig, it'll happen.


Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#204 Nov 13 2012 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
Totem wrote:
ALCON:
I am in an undisclosed location where adjusting my sig is not possible. Just loading the Asylum page is an exercise in frustration where HTML is the law, internet connectivity and loading times are used as alternatives to waterboarding, and censors/interweb watchdogs monitor all webbiness. On my honor, as soon as I get to where I can put Omega's doohickey in my sig, it'll happen.


Totem


I'm sure Kao would be happy to do it for you.





Edited, Nov 13th 2012 7:04pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#205 Nov 13 2012 at 1:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
IMO, this election result shows that identity politics has become the norm for US politics now. Obama didn't win because he had better policies and Romney didn't lose because he had worse ideas. Quite the opposite, in fact. What's happened is that a large enough percentage of the population now votes based on whatever group they identify with and which party promises to do the most for that group that a president with one of the worst records in US history can win re-election purely because he was better able to convince those groups that he was "for them". In the identity politics game, the Left will always have an advantage over the Right simply because it's much harder to convince people that a small government platform benefits their group more than a big government platform will. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to convince a group of people that the government *not* giving them stuff is really better for them.


The ironic thing is that unless this trend can be reversed, the claims of the left about the republicans will become truth instead of just rhetoric. Right now you've got a political Right that believes in and strives for small government, and a political Left which characterizes that within the framework of their own identity based political viewpoint (ie: Republicans aren't really for small government at all, but use that as an excuse to push a pro-white/male/rich/religious agenda). But if a party can't win on small government and must pander to identity groups to have a chance, you will see the Republican party change. Which groups it may choose to pander too may not be quite what the current Left expects, but it's reasonable to expect that our politics will become more partisan, more dividing, and more expensive. And along the wayside will go any hope of a system which keeps government small in order to prevent it from playing favorites in favor of one in which each party attempts to pander to enough groups of people to reach 51% of the population.


I think that'll be a tragedy, but by all means you all go ahead and clap yourselves on the back for your victory. But ask yourselves what you really won.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#206 Nov 13 2012 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Ooooo, that was pretty good. I don't know that it was a week worth of effort good, but it was at the very least fair.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#207 Nov 13 2012 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Quote:
gbaji


Smiley: yippee

Welcome back. Smiley: grin

Doesn't help that case when your last president's policies were more aligned to the social conservative side than the fiscal conservative side of the party.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#208 Nov 13 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
But ask yourselves what you really won.
Well, we won definitive proof of just how easily manipulated by the media you are.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#209 Nov 13 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Ooooo, that was pretty good. I don't know that it was a week worth of effort good, but it was at the very least fair.

Pfftt... weak sauce. Limbaugh was shoveling the "Santa Claus!" schtick days ago.
gbaji wrote:
But ask yourselves what you really won.

Solidifying the first real steps towards universal health care, couple Supreme Court justices, forcing comprehensive immigration reform... Ooohh! Big Bird!

Edited, Nov 13th 2012 1:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#210 Nov 13 2012 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
The idea that Republicans run on a small government platform is laughable. Did you mean smaller?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#211 Nov 13 2012 at 1:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Haha. No. I didn't not put a bullet in my brain, or spend a week crying under my bed. I'm interested in politics, but despite the impression given from my participation on this site, I hardly spend any time thinking about it in the rest of my day to day life. This just happens to be where I engage in political discussions, mainly because I don't play any of the games this site has forums for anymore and that's just what we tend to gravitate towards in that absence.

I had a couple major projects I was working on early last week. While I had time for some shortish posts Tuesday, Wednesday was far too busy for me to spend time framing any sort of post (kinda crunch time for the work I was doing). Then Thursday we had sort of a disaster occur at work, and I've been involved in recovery and conference calls since then (yes through the entire weekend). Yesterday afternoon was the first time I had at all to do any posting, but that didn't last long either (got some other bizarre request tossed at me which I, er google, dispatched with only a couple hours work).

This week I get to catch up on all the work that got blown out of the water last week too. So ugh...


But you guys are still all wrong. Obama will be even more of a disaster in his second term. Um... Recession. Depression. Dogs and cats sleeping together. More partisanship. Fiscal cliffs. Etc, etc, etc... There. Happy?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#212 Nov 13 2012 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,982 posts
So for 53 weeks of the year, you have free time aplenty. The week after election day, you're swamped.

Yeah I believe you.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#213 Nov 13 2012 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
So for 53 weeks of the year, you have free time aplenty

Someone's getting a calendar for Christmas...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#214 Nov 13 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that'll be a tragedy, but by all means you all go ahead and clap yourselves on the back for your victory. But ask yourselves what you really won.


Mmmmm...you can really taste how the sour grapes bring out the delicate balance of condescension and baseless supposition. Take a minute to savor the bouquet....this is a vintage gbaji that we've got here.

Edited, Nov 13th 2012 2:45pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#215 Nov 13 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
gbaji wrote:
Right now you've got a political Right that believes in and strives for small government, and a political Left which characterizes that within the framework of their own identity based political viewpoint (ie: Republicans aren't really for small government at all, but use that as an excuse to push a pro-white/male/rich/religious agenda).



someproteinguy wrote:
]Doesn't help that case when your last president's policies were more aligned to the social conservative side than the fiscal conservative side of the party.


And that's exactly what I was talking about. In what possible way can you argue that Romney was more aligned to the social conservative side than the fiscal side? Romney was as non-threatening in terms of social conservative position as possible.

That you could say that shows how successful the Left has been in framing such things, just as I said. The only way to make such a statement is if you are measuring "social conservative" based on an assumption that the Right engages in the same sorts of identity politics that the Left does.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#216 Nov 13 2012 at 1:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But ask yourselves what you really won.

Solidifying the first real steps towards universal health care, couple Supreme Court justices, forcing comprehensive immigration reform... Ooohh! Big Bird!


And then? What did you win? What do those things accomplish? The problem with liberals is that you're so focused on your own feet that you aren't looking to see where you're going.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Nov 13 2012 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,564 posts
That you could say that shows how successful the Left has been in framing such things, just as I said. The only way to make such a statement is if you are measuring "social conservative" based on an assumption that the Right engages in the same sorts of identity politics that the Left does.

So just full denial then? How boring.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#218 Nov 13 2012 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm amused that after the Right has managed to alienate blacks and Hispanics with years upon years of attacks, it's "identity politics" when they vote Democratic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Nov 13 2012 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
So for 53 weeks of the year, you have free time aplenty

Someone's getting a calendar for Christmas...

Leave me alone I haven't had any coffee yet. Smiley: madSmiley: madSmiley: mad

Also, Ryan blames their loss on an unexpected urban turnout.

News flash: Dems always win metropolitan areas. Oh wait, he meant black people.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#220 Nov 13 2012 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
]Doesn't help that case when your last president's policies were more aligned to the social conservative side than the fiscal conservative side of the party.


And that's exactly what I was talking about. In what possible way can you argue that Romney was more aligned to the social conservative side than the fiscal side? Romney was as non-threatening in terms of social conservative position as possible.


None, and because he didn't have a strong social conservative side I found more likable than the nutters.

That still doesn't change the past track record of the party though. Why should people trust you to do something you guys didn't do last time you had power, especially since it was so recently? (Heck even Reagen increased military spending by no small amount...) There's trust that needs to be rebuilt there. Romney did well downplaying his religious connections certainly, to his benefit, and his personal stance on controversial issues was fairly mainstream. The rest of the party hardly helped him out though, and to some degree that publicity certainly didn't help him.

In short: When a Republican says they're going to shrink government and lower taxes I hardly believe them. Whereas when a Democrat says they want to raise taxes to pay for new social programs I don't doubt it will happen.

Edited, Nov 13th 2012 12:13pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#221 Nov 13 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, Ryan blames their loss on an unexpected urban turnout.

I read that as "unexpected turban turnout"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Nov 13 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, Ryan blames their loss on an unexpected urban turnout.

I read that as "unexpected turban turnout"


You must be psychic. I'm sure Ryan has blamed those dirty brown people at least once since last Tuesday.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#223 Nov 13 2012 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And then? What did you win? What do those things accomplish? The problem with liberals is that you're so focused on your own feet that you aren't looking to see where you're going.

By the way, I'm not avoiding this. I just don't see much gained from you using a series of posts to try and slowly prod me into saying universal health care and Big Bird are the harbingers of a desolate communist wasteland, stripped of liberty and light.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#224 Nov 13 2012 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
The period of your country's history when no-one would vote a non-white man into office wasn't characterised by identity politics at all, of course.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#225 Nov 13 2012 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, Ryan blames their loss on an unexpected urban turnout.

I read that as "unexpected turban turnout"


I read it as "unexpected turban burnout". Really, checkered face-scarves are the new turban.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#226 Nov 13 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Here's another take on that "politics of identity" that gbaji's so eager to parrot. A slightly long, but worthwhile read. Apologies if it's been posted already.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#227 Nov 13 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Aww, did that ruin your special snowflake opinions of yourself?


No, that was a bad "RDD Joke." it was exactly what I wanted it to be. The national and state percentages didn't change in both scenarios, so obviously it's irrelevant.

Simply looking at everyone else results, I'm sure that I maintain my special snowflake status.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#228 Nov 13 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
gbaji wrote:
IMO, this election result shows that identity politics has become the norm for US politics now. Obama didn't win because he had better policies and Romney didn't lose because he had worse ideas. Quite the opposite, in fact. What's happened is that a large enough percentage of the population now votes based on whatever group they identify with and which party promises to do the most for that group that a president with one of the worst records in US history can win re-election purely because he was better able to convince those groups that he was "for them". In the identity politics game, the Left will always have an advantage over the Right simply because it's much harder to convince people that a small government platform benefits their group more than a big government platform will. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to convince a group of people that the government *not* giving them stuff is really better for them.


The ironic thing is that unless this trend can be reversed, the claims of the left about the republicans will become truth instead of just rhetoric. Right now you've got a political Right that believes in and strives for small government, and a political Left which characterizes that within the framework of their own identity based political viewpoint (ie: Republicans aren't really for small government at all, but use that as an excuse to push a pro-white/male/rich/religious agenda). But if a party can't win on small government and must pander to identity groups to have a chance, you will see the Republican party change. Which groups it may choose to pander too may not be quite what the current Left expects, but it's reasonable to expect that our politics will become more partisan, more dividing, and more expensive. And along the wayside will go any hope of a system which keeps government small in order to prevent it from playing favorites in favor of one in which each party attempts to pander to enough groups of people to reach 51% of the population.


I think that'll be a tragedy, but by all means you all go ahead and clap yourselves on the back for your victory. But ask yourselves what you really won.
Smiley: lol Wow, you delivered everything that was expected, plus moar!

So, basically you're saying the majority believe Obama's lies (and they're lazy, welfare slobs) so they voted for them, those that are not so easily fooled voted for Romney and his mere 'half-truths'. Obama wins.. cuz you know, gbaji is smarter than the average bear, and wallah, tragedy!

The best part is think of how much blame you'll be able to place on non-republicans for real tragedies, inconsequential hiccups and stuff you make up, over the next four years.

Now I must go ask myself, "what did I really win?"


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#229 Nov 13 2012 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:
What's happened is that a large enough percentage of the population now votes based on whatever group they identify with and which party promises to do the most for that group that a president with one of the worst records in US history can win re-election purely because he was better able to convince those groups that he was "for them".


When has that not been the case? You can't "murder" each other during primaries then all of the sudden support the nominee as "the best person for the country". Both sides do that and you'll see it in full motion in 2016.

Gbaji wrote:
In the identity politics game, the Left will always have an advantage over the Right simply because it's much harder to convince people that a small government platform benefits their group more than a big government platform will. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to convince a group of people that the government *not* giving them stuff is really better for them.


That's just nonsense that Conservatives tell themselves to make them feel better. Most people of the nation, to include the left, share similarities in values. The reason why Republicans lose is that they besmirch their own reputation by their "holier than thou" attitudes that the poor and middle class are lazy bums wanting handouts from the government. The reality is, people of ALL classes find ways to "cheat the system" and to pretend that welfare is the only way people cheat the system is delusional drivel.

Gbaji wrote:
But ask yourselves what you really won.


Four more years.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#230 Nov 13 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Here's another take on that "politics of identity" that gbaji's so eager to parrot. A slightly long, but worthwhile read. Apologies if it's been posted already.

Really good read. I would have never thought about Muslims feeling more like Republicans back in the day, but it makes sense.
#231 Nov 13 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Here's another take on that "politics of identity" that gbaji's so eager to parrot. A slightly long, but worthwhile read. Apologies if it's been posted already.

Really good read. I would have never thought about Muslims feeling more like Republicans back in the day, but it makes sense.


Twas very good.

I want to say I read something similar a time back (maybe linked here?) talking about similar shifts in the Asian vote around the same time for some of the same reasons; WWII parallels are an added bonus I suppose. The saddest thing is you have articles like that directly telling the GOP "this is why we don't like you" and they'll still act clueless about it.

Not that Romney didn't make himself into a likable enough person (what politician doesn't try to be?) but the kind of background rhetoric that's been going on isn't helping any. To the right wing's benefit they are better organized and more vocal than the far left right now; and times like this it just makes it that much harder to keep them in line.

Nice neighbor with a scary dog in the backyard?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#232 Nov 13 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Man I missed the fun for christs sake.

Good stuff though Gbaji, glad to see your week off comprises nutjob conservative talk show scripts, and the ghost busters shtick really added to it.

You should move to Canada with the rest of the Tparty so you can see first hand how socialism is run. You will be screaming for Democrats in less than a year.





Edited, Nov 14th 2012 12:15am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#233 Nov 13 2012 at 11:05 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
The issue of not eating if you don't work is less about whether we can pay for such niceities-- which is marginally an issue in these financial times-- so much as it is to prevent a culture of dependancy and entitlement from growing and being the norm for these individuals.

To earn their bread by some measure of labor, be that physical, mental, or social, this at the very least bestows on the recipient of government largesse a sense of dignity of having earned their way however small in the larger picture of community service.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#234 Nov 14 2012 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,564 posts
The issue of not eating if you don't work is less about whether we can pay for such niceities-- which is marginally an issue in these financial times-- so much as it is to prevent a culture of dependancy and entitlement from growing and being the norm for these individuals.

To earn their bread by some measure of labor, be that physical, mental, or social, this at the very least bestows on the recipient of government largesse a sense of dignity of having earned their way however small in the larger picture of community service.


Where does this fear of "a culture of dependency" come from, exactly? No one seems to have an issue with the "culture of dependency" around military service, or education, or law enforcement services. That's apparently all fine for people to benefit from without contributing. Food and shelter though, hold the fuck on!

That doesn't strike you as a little backward?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#235 Nov 14 2012 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Where does this fear of "a culture of dependency" come from, exactly? No one seems to have an issue with the "culture of dependency" around military service, or education, or law enforcement services. That's apparently all fine for people to benefit from without contributing. Food and shelter though, hold the fuck on!

That doesn't strike you as a little backward?

Now, now... if the Republicans could stop minorities from getting education or law enforcement protection unless they paid out of pocket, I'm sure that'd be just ducky.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#236 Nov 14 2012 at 6:26 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Where does this fear of "a culture of dependency" come from, exactly? No one seems to have an issue with the "culture of dependency" around military service, or education, or law enforcement services. That's apparently all fine for people to benefit from without contributing. Food and shelter though, hold the fuck on!

That doesn't strike you as a little backward?

Now, now... if the Republicans could stop minorities from getting education or law enforcement protection unless they paid out of pocket, I'm sure that'd be just ducky.


I don't think they would limit it to minorities.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#237 Nov 14 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

That doesn't strike you as a little backward?
Stop urban homlessness - Fill in under the over-passes.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#238 Nov 14 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What's happened is that a large enough percentage of the population now votes based on whatever group they identify with and which party promises to do the most for that group that a president with one of the worst records in US history can win re-election purely because he was better able to convince those groups that he was "for them".


When has that not been the case? You can't "murder" each other during primaries then all of the sudden support the nominee as "the best person for the country". Both sides do that and you'll see it in full motion in 2016.


I think several of you missed my point about identity politics. When that wasn't the case was when the federal government did not operate massive social programs. We started this with Social Security in the 1930s. But that only benefited the elderly. Then we created medicare in the 1960s, also benefiting (mostly) the elderly. But since then we have expanded those social services and have increasingly targeted them (or at least justified them based on the impact) to specific groups. For example, we've made a whole list of different types of funding into black or latino issues because those groups are most likely to be in poorer neighborhoods needing such funding. But we ignore the problems which cause them to be overrepresented in poor neighborhoods in the first place.


That's what I mean by identity politics. Politicians have always pandered to groups of voters. But as the scope of what our government does increases, the degree to which voters are really influenced by such things increase. Promising a chicken in every pot doesn't have the same weight when the government doesn't actually have the power to hand out chickens. It means improving prosperity so that people will be able to obtain their own chickens to fill their own pots. But today, that literally means someone promising that if you vote for them, they'll give you pots with chickens in it (ok, not literally pots and chickens, but hopefully you get the difference). This change affects how people vote and how strongly they are affected by associations between those policies and the identity group they belong to.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
In the identity politics game, the Left will always have an advantage over the Right simply because it's much harder to convince people that a small government platform benefits their group more than a big government platform will. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to convince a group of people that the government *not* giving them stuff is really better for them.


That's just nonsense that Conservatives tell themselves to make them feel better. Most people of the nation, to include the left, share similarities in values.


Do they? What do you suppose is behind the whole 98% bit when it comes to taxes? Obama is banking on the idea that a policy which appears to benefit 98% of the people while hurting 2% of them will be supported by a majority of the people. That approach can absolutely only work if over 50% of those in that 98% are looking at the surface level of the promise (higher taxes, but not on them), and not looking at the effect those taxes will have on them secondarily (like say when the 3% of small businesses affected by the tax increase who happen to employ 50% of small business employers start laying people off to cut costs). People have always failed to think things all the way through, I'm not saying that's the change. What has changed is that all one needs to do is to tell people that a given policy or party is best for their group and most people in that group will vote for them.

That has happened because for the last 40 years the left has taught people to make those connections. And through sheer repetition they've succeeded in getting enough to think of their group before the whole. That's when democracies run into trouble btw.

Quote:
The reason why Republicans lose is that they besmirch their own reputation by their "holier than thou" attitudes that the poor and middle class are lazy bums wanting handouts from the government.


Think about why you just used the phrase "poor and middle class" in that sentence. I'll give you a hint: That's a phrase invented by liberal pundits just in the last couple years and repeated so often that you rattle it off without thinking about it now. Republicans have never attacked middle class people for being lazy and wanting handouts. Some poor people? Sure. But not the middle class. That's somewhat absurd if you stop and think about it. But if you can get enough people to repeat "poor and middle class" enough times, then people will associate the two together as one group. Then middle class voters, who've never been the targets of any negative things from Republicans, will start to believe that somehow when Republicans want to cut spending it hurts them. Because they're part of the new group "poor and middle class", and they've heard all sorts of people talking about how cutting that spending will hurt the "poor and middle class".

It's quite literally just word association. The scary thing is that it works. Especially when you have a friendly media, but that's a whole nother topic.

Quote:
The reality is, people of ALL classes find ways to "cheat the system" and to pretend that welfare is the only way people cheat the system is delusional drivel.


Who said it was the only way? Strawman much

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
But ask yourselves what you really won.


Four more years.


And? What does that get you? What exactly do you expect to gain? What changes do you expect to occur? And how will those be "better"? Pretend that Obama and the Democrats are able to pass every single thing they want to pass over the next four years and then honestly ask how this really makes our lives and our country better. IMO the Democrats are absolutely terrific at convincing people that their polices are the best and getting people to vote for them. But they're absolutely terrible at actually making people's lives better. They're like the used cars salesmen of the political world. And as long as you only measure success by how many cars someone sells, you'll think they're doing a great job.


Some of us care about more than that though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#239 Nov 14 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I would use "poor and middle class" because I'm guessing none of that 47% of America that Romney has utter contempt for qualified as "upper class".

Edited, Nov 14th 2012 7:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#240 Nov 14 2012 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I think several of you missed my point about identity politics. When that wasn't the case was when the federal government did not operate massive social programs. We started this with Social Security in the 1930s. But that only benefited the elderly. Then we created medicare in the 1960s, also benefiting (mostly) the elderly. But since then we have expanded those social services and have increasingly targeted them (or at least justified them based on the impact) to specific groups.

..........

That's what I mean by identity politics. Politicians have always pandered to groups of voters. But as the scope of what our government does increases, the degree to which voters are really influenced by such things increase. Promising a chicken in every pot doesn't have the same weight when the government doesn't actually have the power to hand out chickens. It means improving prosperity so that people will be able to obtain their own chickens to fill their own pots. But today, that literally means someone promising that if you vote for them, they'll give you pots with chickens in it (ok, not literally pots and chickens, but hopefully you get the difference). This change affects how people vote and how strongly they are affected by associations between those policies and the identity group they belong to.





That doesn't change the fact that politicians have always ran campaigns to appeal to people and speak on how much better they are in comparison to their opponent regardless if it's true or not. Both parties secretly hope that their opponent fails so they can come in and save the day with some specious politics. When their opponent is failing, they make wild accusations that their opponent WANTS the US to fail. That has never changed.

Gbaji wrote:
For example, we've made a whole list of different types of funding into black or latino issues because those groups are most likely to be in poorer neighborhoods needing such funding. But we ignore the problems which cause them to be overrepresented in poor neighborhoods in the first place.
Maybe because the US spent over 100 years trying to hold them back and now all of the sudden you are upset because the people that you oppressed for over 100 years are trying to catch up?

'Twas the rich white man who made them poor in the first place, so what is your plan to make things better? Republicans act as if their heritage weren't part of the problem. I'm not for "lowering the standard". Nor am I about blaming everything on slavery, immigration laws, pre-suffrage time, etc. but this idiotic belief that a few decades of "true freedom" is somehow supposed to level out the playing field is rubbish that conservatives have been ruminating as facts for some time now.

Gbaji wrote:
Do they?


Yes. More specifically, in reference to morals and values which is the claim that Conservatives is being lost.

Gbaji wrote:
What do you suppose is behind the whole 98% bit when it comes to taxes? Obama is banking on the idea that a policy which appears to benefit 98% of the people while hurting 2% of them will be supported by a majority of the people. That approach can absolutely only work if over 50% of those in that 98% are looking at the surface level of the promise (higher taxes, but not on them), and not looking at the effect those taxes will have on them secondarily (like say when the 3% of small businesses affected by the tax increase who happen to employ 50% of small business employers start laying people off to cut costs). People have always failed to think things all the way through, I'm not saying that's the change. What has changed is that all one needs to do is to tell people that a given policy or party is best for their group and most people in that group will vote for them.


I'm willing to bet that MOST people do not feel as sorry as you want to believe for millionaires and billionaires being taxed more. That concept applies to all levels from minimum wage on up. When I worked at Mc Donalds, I got taxed $40 or so (iirc), but now I lose a grand easily monthly. I don't complain, because I'm making more money. That's how it works. If you don't want to be taxed more, then earn less. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Think about in terms of welfare. Do you believe that a person on welfare should be able to work and earn money also? NO! Why not? Because if you're able to work, then you shouldn't be on welfare. Well, the same concept applies on the opposite end. I know that you're not in watching links, as you avoided the last link that I provided you, but here is how I believe the US views taxing the rich.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal

Gbaji wrote:
Think about why you just used the phrase "poor and middle class" in that sentence. I'll give you a hint: That's a phrase invented by liberal pundits just in the last couple years and repeated so often that you rattle it off without thinking about it now. Republicans have never attacked middle class people for being lazy and wanting handouts. Some poor people? Sure. But not the middle class.


Have you not been watching T.V. or Facebooking? Republicans may not have been single targeting the middle class, BUT their comments were that the PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA were fat lazy bums looking for a handout. That, my friend, includes the middle class.

Gbaji wrote:
That's somewhat absurd if you stop and think about it


You're right. So, why do Conservatives keep saying it?

Gbaji wrote:
But if you can get enough people to repeat "poor and middle class" enough times, then people will associate the two together as one group. Then middle class voters, who've never been the targets of any negative things from Republicans, will start to believe that somehow when Republicans want to cut spending it hurts them. Because they're part of the new group "poor and middle class", and they've heard all sorts of people talking about how cutting that spending will hurt the "poor and middle class".
It's quite literally just word association. The scary thing is that it works. Especially when you have a friendly media, but that's a whole nother topic.


I see your angle, but the problem is the subjectivity of it all. In your mind, "middle class" can be "Very well off, living a realistic dream". To others, "middle class" is "Not poor, making ends meet". There's a huge spectrum of "middle class" and you can't assume that the "middle class" isn't financially effected as well.

Gbaji wrote:
And? What does that get you? What exactly do you expect to gain? What changes do you expect to occur? And how will those be "better"? Pretend that Obama and the Democrats are able to pass every single thing they want to pass over the next four years and then honestly ask how this really makes our lives and our country better. IMO the Democrats are absolutely terrific at convincing people that their polices are the best and getting people to vote for them. But they're absolutely terrible at actually making people's lives better. They're like the used cars salesmen of the political world. And as long as you only measure success by how many cars someone sells, you'll think they're doing a great job.


Some of us care about more than that though.


Remember that link of the 3rd debate that I presented to you? It was a compilation of Governor Romney contradicting himself just to win. I win four more years of not that...

Don't confuse me with your "average liberal". I'm a independent. I did NOT support President Obama and slightly considered Romney as a candidate in the primaries in 2008. In this last election, I wanted Romney to win at one point, just to see how much would change. But I was politically ignorant. When I educated myself, I realized that Romney just wanted to win and he was full of trash. I debated if I were going to be a hypocrite and vote for the lesser of two evils, but realized that the reason why I didn't support President Obama in 08 was a lack of experience. Now, in 2012, he has the experience and overall (not all), I support many of his ideas.

But, not to avoid your answer, a big change would be Obamacare.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#241 Nov 14 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
My personal nightmare...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#242 Nov 14 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
But if the rich can't do that it hurts them! gbaji says says so, so it must be true!
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#243 Nov 15 2012 at 12:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
Pretend that Obama and the Democrats are able to pass every single thing they want to pass over the next four years and then honestly ask how this really makes our lives and our country better.


Immigration reform, which would lead to more tax revenue. The repeal of DOMA, leaving marriage up to the states. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, lowering military spending. Increased taxes on those making above $250K, increasing revenue & lowering the deficit and keeping the economy stable by not increasing taxes on the low & middle classes. The closing of various tax loopholes, further increasing revenue & lowering the deficit. Medicare reform, further reducing spending. Clean energy initiatives, reducing the effects of man-made global warming in the future. Continued funding for NASA, meaning the James Webb telescope launches, the continued development of the next generation of rockets, & future manned missions to the moon, an asteroid, & Mars continue as scheduled. The appointment of Supreme Court Judges that will uphold Roe v Wade & equal rights for Women & minorities. Continued funding for education & college scholarships. And other economic policies that progress the economy forward for all, as opposed to the economic policies of Dubya where the rich got richer & everyone else got screwed...

And so on.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#244 Nov 15 2012 at 12:52 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
My personal nightmare...

I was just thinking the same thing. Let the battle of endless, pointless words rage on forevermore.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#245 Nov 15 2012 at 3:54 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm confused... when did Alma start making more sense than Gbaji?
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#246 Nov 15 2012 at 4:06 AM Rating: Good
**
586 posts
I had to look at the name again to make sure.
____________________________
.
#247 Nov 15 2012 at 6:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Totem wrote:
To earn their bread by some measure of labor, be that physical, mental, or social, this at the very least bestows on the recipient of government largesse a sense of dignity of having earned their way however small in the larger picture of community service.

Totem
I was unemployed for almost two years. I was pretty much scouring Craigslist for side jobs, and got by on basic handyman and landscaping skills. I applied for at least one job every day, and was registered at the DLT's employment assistance center. The one thing that really stood out to me while being on unemployment was that there are so many ways in which they could use the unemployed that they just don't. I'm not saying to make them work a 40-hour workweek and thereby have very little time to job hunt, but they could work 8-16 hours a week for the city or state they live in. The unemployment office was about 4 week behind on claims at one point. They could have hired some of the massive amount of unemployed people to help out. Weeks when I couldn't line any jobs up, I'd volunteer at the food bank, typically. Anything to keep myself doing something.

I think that letting people just sit idly by and collect their unemployment benefits without having to do anything is a terrible idea. Now, not everyone is abusing it, but that kind of system certainly lends itself to abuse. Even those who don't intend to do so can end up just stopping their work search. It's so easy to just stop. When weeks and months go by of applying for jobs and talking to hiring managers and going to the assistance center to see if they have any work for you and getting absolutely nowhere, why not just collect your benefits and do nothing for a while? Giving people some small amount of work in order to continue to receive benefits is not only beneficial to the system itself, but also to the unemployed. There's a mental boost from feeling like you earned the money you get every week.
____________________________
Banh
#248 Nov 15 2012 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Totem wrote:
To earn their bread by some measure of labor, be that physical, mental, or social, this at the very least bestows on the recipient of government largesse a sense of dignity of having earned their way however small in the larger picture of community service.

Totem
I was unemployed for almost two years. I was pretty much scouring Craigslist for side jobs, and got by on basic handyman and landscaping skills. I applied for at least one job every day, and was registered at the DLT's employment assistance center. The one thing that really stood out to me while being on unemployment was that there are so many ways in which they could use the unemployed that they just don't. I'm not saying to make them work a 40-hour workweek and thereby have very little time to job hunt, but they could work 8-16 hours a week for the city or state they live in. The unemployment office was about 4 week behind on claims at one point. They could have hired some of the massive amount of unemployed people to help out. Weeks when I couldn't line any jobs up, I'd volunteer at the food bank, typically. Anything to keep myself doing something.

I think that letting people just sit idly by and collect their unemployment benefits without having to do anything is a terrible idea. Now, not everyone is abusing it, but that kind of system certainly lends itself to abuse. Even those who don't intend to do so can end up just stopping their work search. It's so easy to just stop. When weeks and months go by of applying for jobs and talking to hiring managers and going to the assistance center to see if they have any work for you and getting absolutely nowhere, why not just collect your benefits and do nothing for a while? Giving people some small amount of work in order to continue to receive benefits is not only beneficial to the system itself, but also to the unemployed. There's a mental boost from feeling like you earned the money you get every week.

I hated being unemployed. Even though I was drawing a little bit of money, I felt useless and a bit lost. Sure, it was nice to not have to be anywhere at a certain time every day, but that wore off after a while, too. And I felt the same way as you - the unemployment office was always behind, always too busy. They could have hired someone like me, even if it was temporary, to help out.

I've been back in the work force now since June. And I feel so much better. It's not just the fact that I'm bringing in much better money now, it's about feeling like I'm accomplishing something. And I enjoy my days off so much more now, haha.

Speaking of days off, time to buy the Rift expansion and play all day!
#249 Nov 15 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Spoonless wrote:
The one thing that really stood out to me while being on unemployment was that there are so many ways in which they could use the unemployed that they just don't. I'm not saying to make them work a 40-hour workweek and thereby have very little time to job hunt, but they could work 8-16 hours a week for the city or state they live in. The unemployment office was about 4 week behind on claims at one point. They could have hired some of the massive amount of unemployed people to help out. Weeks when I couldn't line any jobs up, I'd volunteer at the food bank, typically. Anything to keep myself doing something.

I'm with you in spirit but, in reality, that would be a logistical nightmare. How many people do you need to do grunt work for the unemployment office? Likely the issue isn't that too many forms are going unstapled but anything harder than "Staple these" means you need to train them for some task. And manage them. Which means more unemployment staff. Not to mention that this means the people are working for you so you need to provide the appropriate tax information, etc. Which means more work for your real staff. You can't just say "We'll only give you this money if you work 16 hours but that doesn't mean you're working for this money." The same applies to making the people work at any task in the town/state. I could go on but I think you get the idea.

For the amount of hassle, overhead and management, you'd be better off putting that money (in whatever fashion) into creating real sustained jobs than a revolving door of menial labor and trying to find busy-work for people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Nov 15 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
My personal nightmare...
I keep hoping they get crushed under the weight of their thesauruses.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#251 Nov 15 2012 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Whoa, when did Joph join the Party of No?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CST
Almalieque, stupidmonkey, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (28)