So here's a thing about me: I don't know jack ***** about the economy. I have done precisely zero research into who's tax plan makes more sense, who's really going to create more jobs, who's energy policy will work, who's going to raise the national debt the most, or any of that stuff.
I watched the debates and they'd both say "your plans suck! my plans rule!" and I didn't really have any evidence to support either side. I'll watch occasional shows that talk about it, like Jon Oliver or, if I get really desperate, the Daily Show, and they'd maybe bring up some evidence, but I don't have much context for how reliable that evidence is, or how much evidence contradicts it. For a bit I thought "Man, maybe I'd really better actually do some research and become an informed citizen! I wouldn't want to vote for someone just because the pundit who supports that candidate is funnier than the one who isn't."
But then I watched the third debate and remembered - oh right. If Trump gets elected he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade. He's said he wants to overturn gay marriage. He wants to fight all types of gun regulation. All issues that are really easy to understand and, I daresay, the republican party will ultimately be on the wrong side of. And he's been a bit cagier on gay rights than previous candidates, back when Bush was running he said stuff that would be pretty offensive today. And I can't believe they're still fighting against abortion.
The Republicans always tie themselves to these stupid issues. I've never had a republican nominee in my lifetime who supported abortion or gay rights, and as long as that's the case I really don't give a crap about their plan for the economy. I can just say "Oooh, another bigoted ******** who wants to put us back to 1950? Noooooope." And it doesn't matter that Hilary might be hiding a kevin-spacey-load of corpses in her closet, or that her smile plants maggots in my brain, because the republicans won't give me a real alternative because they're shackling themselves to these stupid backwards social issues to appease the evangelicals or whoever.
I mean seriously. Can we not get a little freaking variety?
You have to remember that on the other side, there are staunch Republican voters who say "A pro-choice Democrat who wants to murder babies? Noooooope." I don't agree with them, but they're there whether we like it or not, and they make up a powerful voting bloc that the Republicans need to have show up to the polls in order to have a chance.
You have to remember that on the other side, there are staunch Republican voters who say "A pro-choice Democrat who wants to murder babies? Noooooope." I don't agree with them, but they're there whether we like it or not, and they make up a powerful voting bloc that the Republicans need to have show up to the polls in order to have a chance.
Dude but what if there was a moderate republican? They'd still get the votes from the republicans who refuse to vote any other way, and he might actually get some liberal votes
But I guess they don't make it past the primaries.
But I guess they don't make it past the primaries.
Bingo. The problem with the Republican party right now is that the different groups within the party don't tend to play well with each other. Within the Democratic party the majority of the groups tend to agree on the majority of issues (generally financially liberal and mostly socially liberal, though the latter is on a spectrum). However, within the Republican party the extremeists tend to be more extreme than within the Democratic party and have much more of a say as well. Appealing to the extremists is a must to get past the primaries, but that stuff can come back to dog you in the general where the audience is much less extreme.
To be honest, I don't think they can do it. Appealing to the extremist minority within the Republican party during the primaries is a death sentence when that group is no longer able to carry elections by themselves. Each primary season the Republican party bleeds minority voters because the rhetoric becomes more and more extreme.
Until they purge (for lack of a better term) this toxic element from within their party, I don't think they will be able to win a presidential election again. Not with the current demographic trends.
The Democrats have presented themselves nationally as the party of inclusiveness, and virtually all elements of their policies converge on this.
Since their positions are all connected under a single umbrella, it's fairly easy to present a unified front.
The Republicans are not unified. It's hard to unify when your party is increasingly nothing more than conservatism towards everything under the sun.
Here's the thing though- social liberals have to understand that, as far as state politics are concerned, the Republicans tend to win. It's fairly easy to lose sight of this, what with social media and the fact that the random media you see on aggregate sites these days seem to do nothing but endorse some form of social liberalism, but the fact of the matter is-
The Democrats have presented themselves nationally as the party of inclusiveness, and virtually all elements of their policies converge on this.
Since their positions are all connected under a single umbrella, it's fairly easy to present a unified front.
The Republicans are not unified. It's hard to unify when your party is increasingly nothing more than conservatism towards everything under the sun.
Here's the thing though- social liberals have to understand that, as far as state politics are concerned, the Republicans tend to win. It's fairly easy to lose sight of this, what with social media and the fact that the random media you see on aggregate sites these days seem to do nothing but endorse some form of social liberalism, but the fact of the matter is-
I'm sure there are plenty of people who express the same opinion as you, except the opposite as far as the positions are concerned.
I say this because I think that means some important things.
I should point out that some of those GOP governors, such as Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan would be mercilessly branded as RINOs by the gatekeepers of the GOP. They are moderate Republicans in heavily blue states.
State politics is a lot different than national politics. At the state level you don't have to go through all the gatekeepers that will subject you to purity tests.
The Democrats have presented themselves nationally as the party of inclusiveness, and virtually all elements of their policies converge on this.
Since their positions are all connected under a single umbrella, it's fairly easy to present a unified front.
The Republicans are not unified. It's hard to unify when your party is increasingly nothing more than conservatism towards everything under the sun.
Here's the thing though- social liberals have to understand that, as far as state politics are concerned, the Republicans tend to win. It's fairly easy to lose sight of this, what with social media and the fact that the random media you see on aggregate sites these days seem to do nothing but endorse some form of social liberalism, but the fact of the matter is-
I'm sure there are plenty of people who express the same opinion as you, except the opposite as far as the positions are concerned.
I say this because I think that means some important things.
I should point out that some of those GOP governors, such as Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan would be mercilessly branded as RINOs by the gatekeepers of the GOP. They are moderate Republicans in heavily blue states.
State politics is a lot different than national politics. At the state level you don't have to go through all the gatekeepers that will subject you to purity tests.
As the GoP splinters, there's a push towards having fewer of those gatekeepers. Some of these groups like Club for Growth aren't really that good for the US policy, whereas Chambers of Commerce would support more of these governors. Chambers are more aligned with the political heart of the business The business wing is already stating more infrastructure spending and is shifting the GoP slightly leftward from the old no spend and no tax formula.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Counting the number of Red states on one column versus the number of Blue states in the other is meaningless. You are comparing states like Wyoming and Kentucky to California and Delaware. About the most important state consistently leaning Right is Texas, and even there, it is mostly because of rural conservatism overshadowing what centers of prosperity there are in the state.
You want to learn a skill to be profitable in the economy, and the learning of that skill will incline you away from a long list of backward ideas. Same thing with the court systems, and other important institutions. Every one of them that is critical leans left.
And... winning a dozen states among the West Coast, New England, maybe Florida and Illinois, and that's enough to make you president of the US.
I happen to think that the electoral map is more determinative of the party platforms than platforms are on the map, but even so, it is definitely the electoral map and not the number of states that matters.
Counting the number of Red states on one column versus the number of Blue states in the other is meaningless. You are comparing states like Wyoming and Kentucky to California and Delaware. About the most important state consistently leaning Right is Texas, and even there, it is mostly because of rural conservatism overshadowing what centers of prosperity there are in the state.
You want to learn a skill to be profitable in the economy, and the learning of that skill will incline you away from a long list of backward ideas. Same thing with the court systems, and other important institutions. Every one of them that is critical leans left.
But then I watched the third debate and remembered - oh right. If Trump gets elected he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade. He's said he wants to overturn gay marriage. He wants to fight all types of gun regulation. All issues that are really easy to understand and, I daresay, the republican party will ultimately be on the wrong side of. And he's been a bit cagier on gay rights than previous candidates, back when Bush was running he said stuff that would be pretty offensive today. And I can't believe they're still fighting against abortion.
The Republican position on LGBT rights is definitely on the wrong side of history. That's blindingly obvious just from looking at the evolution of pop culture over the last decade. But abortion? Gun control? The needle on opinion polls about abortion has scarcely moved since Roe v. Wade -- the two sides are deeply entrenched and not going anywhere. It may be that some future social development causes a big swing, but there's no reason to suppose the swing is more likely to go one way than the other. (And honestly, I don't expect that to happen, at least not before contraceptive and other reproductive technology renders the whole point moot.) As for gun control, have you noticed that Republicans tend to harp a lot more about protecting gun rights than Democrats harp about preventing gun violence? That's because Dems have realized that, by and large, gun control is a losing issue for them in this country. Clinton had to preface her recent remarks on background check legislation by reiterating that of course she respects the Second Amendment.
In short: just because the right answer to these questions seems easy for you to understand does not mean they are not complicated issues, or that society will ultimately come to agree with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So I think we can all just say no they're not after this election.
Mmmm,
Wouldn't go that far. This election was not a "Trump won" but a "Clinton lost." Vote counts for both candidates were at a low from even 2012. Trump was just slightly more exciting (in an alarming way) than CLinton was.
So I think we can all just say no they're not after this election.
Mmmm,
Wouldn't go that far. This election was not a "Trump won" but a "Clinton lost." Vote counts for both candidates were at a low from even 2012. Trump was just slightly more exciting (in an alarming way) than CLinton was.
No, Clinton got more votes, Trump didn't win because more people preferred him. Trump's victory is down to the location of his voters.
I would say this is a 'Clinton lost' scenario though.
So I think we can all just say no they're not after this election.
Trump lost the popular vote by like half of NZ's population (2.2 million and change, for those of you keeping score).
Republicans control three branches of government when before they had one. If hamstringing yourself is this kind of win I'll hamstring myself every time.
So I think we can all just say no they're not after this election.
Mmmm,
Wouldn't go that far. This election was not a "Trump won" but a "Clinton lost." Vote counts for both candidates were at a low from even 2012. Trump was just slightly more exciting (in an alarming way) than CLinton was.
No, Clinton got more votes, Trump didn't win because more people preferred him. Trump's victory is down to the location of his voters.
I would say this is a 'Clinton lost' scenario though.
Clinton got 6-7 million less votes than Obama did in 2012. Trump got 1-2 million less than Romney did. Yes, your right location was relevant here as Clinton still won, but lost votes in some of the more relevant areas.
So here's a thing about me: I don't know jack ***** about the economy. I have done precisely zero research into who's tax plan makes more sense, who's really going to create more jobs, who's energy policy will work, who's going to raise the national debt the most, or any of that stuff.
I watched the debates and they'd both say "your plans suck! my plans rule!" and I didn't really have any evidence to support either side. I'll watch occasional shows that talk about it, like Jon Oliver or, if I get really desperate, the Daily Show, and they'd maybe bring up some evidence, but I don't have much context for how reliable that evidence is, or how much evidence contradicts it. For a bit I thought "Man, maybe I'd really better actually do some research and become an informed citizen! I wouldn't want to vote for someone just because the pundit who supports that candidate is funnier than the one who isn't."
But then I watched the third debate and remembered - oh right. If Trump gets elected he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade. He's said he wants to overturn gay marriage. He wants to fight all types of gun regulation. All issues that are really easy to understand and, I daresay, the republican party will ultimately be on the wrong side of. And he's been a bit cagier on gay rights than previous candidates, back when Bush was running he said stuff that would be pretty offensive today. And I can't believe they're still fighting against abortion.
The Republicans always tie themselves to these stupid issues. I've never had a republican nominee in my lifetime who supported abortion or gay rights, and as long as that's the case I really don't give a crap about their plan for the economy. I can just say "Oooh, another bigoted ******** who wants to put us back to 1950? Noooooope." And it doesn't matter that Hilary might be hiding a kevin-spacey-load of corpses in her closet, or that her smile plants maggots in my brain, because the republicans won't give me a real alternative because they're shackling themselves to these stupid backwards social issues to appease the evangelicals or whoever.
I mean seriously. Can we not get a little freaking variety?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But I guess they don't make it past the primaries.
Damn I hate our government.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Bingo. The problem with the Republican party right now is that the different groups within the party don't tend to play well with each other. Within the Democratic party the majority of the groups tend to agree on the majority of issues (generally financially liberal and mostly socially liberal, though the latter is on a spectrum). However, within the Republican party the extremeists tend to be more extreme than within the Democratic party and have much more of a say as well. Appealing to the extremists is a must to get past the primaries, but that stuff can come back to dog you in the general where the audience is much less extreme.
To be honest, I don't think they can do it. Appealing to the extremist minority within the Republican party during the primaries is a death sentence when that group is no longer able to carry elections by themselves. Each primary season the Republican party bleeds minority voters because the rhetoric becomes more and more extreme.
Until they purge (for lack of a better term) this toxic element from within their party, I don't think they will be able to win a presidential election again. Not with the current demographic trends.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Since their positions are all connected under a single umbrella, it's fairly easy to present a unified front.
The Republicans are not unified. It's hard to unify when your party is increasingly nothing more than conservatism towards everything under the sun.
Here's the thing though- social liberals have to understand that, as far as state politics are concerned, the Republicans tend to win. It's fairly easy to lose sight of this, what with social media and the fact that the random media you see on aggregate sites these days seem to do nothing but endorse some form of social liberalism, but the fact of the matter is-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
As far as the sentiment in the OP is concerned-
I'm sure there are plenty of people who express the same opinion as you, except the opposite as far as the positions are concerned.
I say this because I think that means some important things.
I should point out that some of those GOP governors, such as Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan would be mercilessly branded as RINOs by the gatekeepers of the GOP. They are moderate Republicans in heavily blue states.
State politics is a lot different than national politics. At the state level you don't have to go through all the gatekeepers that will subject you to purity tests.
As the GoP splinters, there's a push towards having fewer of those gatekeepers. Some of these groups like Club for Growth aren't really that good for the US policy, whereas Chambers of Commerce would support more of these governors. Chambers are more aligned with the political heart of the business The business wing is already stating more infrastructure spending and is shifting the GoP slightly leftward from the old no spend and no tax formula.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
You want to learn a skill to be profitable in the economy, and the learning of that skill will incline you away from a long list of backward ideas. Same thing with the court systems, and other important institutions. Every one of them that is critical leans left.
And... winning a dozen states among the West Coast, New England, maybe Florida and Illinois, and that's enough to make you president of the US.
I happen to think that the electoral map is more determinative of the party platforms than platforms are on the map, but even so, it is definitely the electoral map and not the number of states that matters.
You elitist bastard.
In short: just because the right answer to these questions seems easy for you to understand does not mean they are not complicated issues, or that society will ultimately come to agree with you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Mmmm,
Wouldn't go that far. This election was not a "Trump won" but a "Clinton lost." Vote counts for both candidates were at a low from even 2012. Trump was just slightly more exciting (in an alarming way) than CLinton was.
We'll see what happens in the future.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, Clinton got more votes, Trump didn't win because more people preferred him. Trump's victory is down to the location of his voters.
I would say this is a 'Clinton lost' scenario though.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Republicans control three branches of government when before they had one. If hamstringing yourself is this kind of win I'll hamstring myself every time.
Clinton got 6-7 million less votes than Obama did in 2012. Trump got 1-2 million less than Romney did. Yes, your right location was relevant here as Clinton still won, but lost votes in some of the more relevant areas.
The GJ way path to no lynching: