Romney: 47% of Americans are losers, don't care about 'em

[Berkut]

Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.

Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.

I just said in the next sentence why it's important.  The current problem is not the last problem we'll face.  There will be more problems later on.  If there is a culture instilled that radicalism and lack of compromise will be identified and punished, next time there is more incentive to do things sensibly.  Blaming both kids for fighting doesn't dissuade fighting as much as punishing the kid who threw the first punch (but of course it's harder to allocate blame that way).

No argument here. Just want to note that this is inconsistent with your own stated views on moderates within your own party, where you felt that non-radicalism and compromise should be what is punished.

It isn't important in the current political climate, since even the most moderate of Dems is clearly preferable to the fucked up Tea Party creatures, but I do think that your position on moderates in your party reversed to the Republican Party in the last 4 years is what has gotten the Republicans to be this caricature of a actual party.

If we simply categorize party member using a simplistic scale:

1 - True nutbar radicals - Tea Party activists who think the country should burn if that is what is needed to get rid of Obama, Moveon nutjobs who swore that Bush was going to have a coup to stay in power, etc.
2 - Non moderate True Believers. The "core" of the party, those who are ideologically driven by the foundations of what the party means, and shows consdierable loyalty to THe Party as an ideological identity. I put you in this category.
3 - Party moderates - Those who basically agree with the bulk of the principles their party is based on at least to the extent that they do so more than they do with the other party, but may have some (even significant) differences with group 2 on specific issues, and are generally willing to cross party lines on specific issues.

It is group 2 that allows group 1 to take control when group 2 decides that group 3 are not "true believers" enough and do not support them against group 1. This is what has happened to the Republican Party, to the extent that in many case, you cannot get elected unless you at least pretend to be group 1, you had better AT LEAST be group 2, and group 3 has no shot at winning a primary anymore.

That is what results in the radicalization of a party.

I don't think this has ever happened that I've seen in the Dems, at least not to the extent that it has for the Republicans these last few years. Obviously the balance within any party shifts back and forth over time.

But here is the kicker - you need group 3 to get anything done. Government is the art of compromise, and it is the moderates in each party that are the ones that make governance possible when government is divided...and often even when it is not divided. Because they don't necessarily agree with their True Believers, so that forces the True Believers to temper their demands, which is a good thing (at least to those of use who are not True Believers of the party in power). And that equates to the majority of the population.

[CountDeMoney]

Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama

CHARLESTON, WV—According to the results of a Gallup poll released Monday, the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama. "I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad, a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and has had numerous political prisoners executed, than spend time with Obama. "He takes national defense seriously, and he'd never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does." According to the same Gallup poll, 60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim.

[DGuller]

No argument here. Just want to note that this is inconsistent with your own stated views on moderates within your own party, where you felt that non-radicalism and compromise should be what is punished.

It's inconsistent with your own interpretation of my views, but that's par for the course more often than not.

[Razgovory]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

No, I wouldn't give them that much credit.  "Pox on both houses" is just cynicism, the most chic form of cowardice.  It's for people who are so afraid of being wrong and looking stupid that they forgo any chance of being right.

Or you could make up insane fairy tales about non-partisans.  Whatever it takes to fight off radicalism.  Besides you do the exact same thing I do: babble on message boards and show up to vote.  Am I supposed to be over-awed by your courage?

You added this second part after I responded!  There is one thing a person who says "pox on both their houses" doesn't do.  Play defense.  He doesn't have to really defend what they believe, only attack.  You can look cool and political and worldly without worrying about little things like seeing your ideas blow up in your face or the getting downhearted by a candidate not living up to your expectation.  "Pox on both their houses" means never having to admit you were wrong, which is perfect for people who want to look political or feel like they part of a political discussion without actually being part of one.

[Valmy]

You added this second part after I responded!  There is one thing a person who says "pox on both their houses" doesn't do.  Play defense.  He doesn't have to really defend what they believe, only attack.  You can look cool and political and worldly without worrying about little things like seeing your ideas blow up in your face or the getting downhearted by a candidate not living up to your expectation.  "Pox on both their houses" means never having to admit you were wrong, which is perfect for people who want to look political or feel like they part of a political discussion without actually being part of one.

I guess I do not get the advantage of having your ideas unrepresented by the political mainstream.  The fact that horrible ideas and policies are doing great damage to my country is not offset by looking cool and political and worldly.

Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.

[Eddie Teach]

Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.

Well, most cooks are pretty crazy, at least that's what television has led me to believe. 

[Razgovory]

You added this second part after I responded!  There is one thing a person who says "pox on both their houses" doesn't do.  Play defense.  He doesn't have to really defend what they believe, only attack.  You can look cool and political and worldly without worrying about little things like seeing your ideas blow up in your face or the getting downhearted by a candidate not living up to your expectation.  "Pox on both their houses" means never having to admit you were wrong, which is perfect for people who want to look political or feel like they part of a political discussion without actually being part of one.

I guess I do not get the advantage of having your ideas unrepresented by the political mainstream.  The fact that horrible ideas and policies are doing great damage to my country is not offset by looking cool and political and worldly.

Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.

What you you do you found out it was your ideas that were horrible?  What if they were enacted and did terrible harm?

[mongers]

Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama

CHARLESTON, WV—According to the results of a Gallup poll released Monday, the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama. "I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad, a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and has had numerous political prisoners executed, than spend time with Obama. "He takes national defense seriously, and he'd never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does." According to the same Gallup poll, 60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim.

Excellent Onion article.

[Razgovory]

Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama

CHARLESTON, WV—According to the results of a Gallup poll released Monday, the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama. "I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad, a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and has had numerous political prisoners executed, than spend time with Obama. "He takes national defense seriously, and he'd never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does." According to the same Gallup poll, 60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim.

Excellent Onion article.

Which was apparently picked up by an Iranian news agency.

[Valmy]

What you you do you found out it was your ideas that were horrible?  What if they were enacted and did terrible harm?

I would then change my ideas, when new evidence comes to light you have to adjust.

[MadImmortalMan]

Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.

Well, most cooks are pretty crazy, at least that's what television has led me to believe. 

It's true.

[CountDeMoney]

What you you do you found out it was your ideas that were horrible?  What if they were enacted and did terrible harm?

Already been there.  I was a College Republican.

[Phillip V]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

No, I think the most dangerous enabler of radicalism are the actual radicals...especially the ones who mistake disagreement with their views as some kind of actual malevolence.

The real enablers of the radicals are the not so radicals who do buy into the idea that dissent within the party is so terrible that it deserves being stamped out irrespective of the legitimacy of the viewpoint.

As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.

That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.

Radicals are always going to be there to some extent.  The difference between them being a fringe and being in power is how far they are enabled by non-radicals.

Correct. IIRC, Hitler came to power via a coalition of people who were more afraid of Communists, and everybody else has a high level of moral relativism/individualism?

[katmai]

I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.

What a depressing thought.

[Ed Anger]

I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.

What a depressing thought.

My country, right or wrong!