Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64

Thread: Boycott the Republican Party

  1. #1
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User

    Boycott the Republican Party

    Boycott the Republican Party

    If conservatives want to save the GOP from itself, they need to vote mindlessly and mechanically against its nominees.


    A few days after the Democratic electoral sweep this past November in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere, The Washington Post asked a random Virginia man to explain his vote. The man, a marketing executive named Toren Beasley, replied that his calculus was simply to refuse to calculate. “It could have been Dr. Seuss or the Berenstain Bears on the ballot and I would have voted for them if they were a Democrat,” he said. “I might do more analyses in other years. But in this case, no. No one else gets any consideration because what’s going on with the Republicans—I’m talking about Trump and his cast of characters—is stupid, stupid, stupid. I can’t say stupid enough times.”

    Count us in, Mr. Beasley. We’re with you, though we tend to go with dangerous rather than stupid. And no one could be more surprised that we’re saying this than we are.

    We have both spent our professional careers strenuously avoiding partisanship in our writing and thinking. We have both done work that is, in different ways, ideologically eclectic, and that has—over a long period of time—cast us as not merely nonpartisans but antipartisans. Temperamentally, we agree with the late Christopher Hitchens: Partisanship makes you stupid. We are the kind of voters who political scientists say barely exist—true independents who scour candidates’ records in order to base our votes on individual merit, not party brand.

    This, then, is the article we thought we would never write: a frank statement that a certain form of partisanship is now a moral necessity. The Republican Party, as an institution, has become a danger to the rule of law and the integrity of our democracy. The problem is not just Donald Trump; it’s the larger political apparatus that made a conscious decision to enable him. In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates. We’re thus driven to believe that the best hope of defending the country from Trump’s Republican enablers, and of saving the Republican Party from itself, is to do as Toren Beasley did: vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former).

    Of course, lots of people vote a straight ticket. Some do so because they are partisan. Others do so because of a particular policy position: Many pro-lifers, for example, will not vote for Democrats, even pro-life Democrats, because they see the Democratic Party as institutionally committed to the slaughter of babies.

    We’re proposing something different. We’re suggesting that in today’s situation, people should vote a straight Democratic ticket even if they are not partisan, and despite their policy views. They should vote against Republicans in a spirit that is, if you will, prepartisan and prepolitical. Their attitude should be: The rule of law is a threshold value in American politics, and a party that endangers this value disqualifies itself, period. In other words, under certain peculiar and deeply regrettable circumstances, sophisticated, independent-minded voters need to act as if they were dumb-ass partisans.
    That ain't the whole article, but you get the picture... well some of you might, but since most of you probably can't read beyond a 3rd grade level, I'll spell it out: if you're still supporting Trump by this point, then you're a dumb, immoral, piece of shit cunt.
    Last edited by Kzach; March 1st, 2018 at 12:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

 

  • #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kzach View Post
    If conservatives want to save the GOP from itself, they need to vote mindlessly and mechanically against its nominees.
    Well, we know they can at least vote mindlessly and mechanically.
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • #3
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,394

    Ignore User
    Trump just hit 50% approval (which is meaningfully higher than Obama was at this point (a 7 point difference), for what that is worth).

    You're not going to get Republicans to bolt on their own party because "The Atlantic" says you should. Not unless you offer something more than "not-Trump". Which, so far, that appears to be the primary message of the Democratic party.

    I think the Democrats will win a lot during the mid-terms, but that's pretty normal (4 of the last 6 that's happened, and the two it didn't happen involved 9/11 and an impeachment). Winning the next Presidential election...that will be harder. The Democratic party needs to figure out it's identity. Are the the Identity Politics party, the moderate liberal party, or the progressive democratic-socialist party? Those three branches have been warring internally for a while now, and it's not getting any better. Their public message has been extremely mild and watery because of that, aside from "not-Trump". That's not a national message they can sell, so far.
    Last edited by Mistwell; February 28th, 2018 at 02:39 AM.
    I like hats.

  • #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Trump just hit 50% approval (which is meaningfully higher than Obama was at this point (a 7 point difference), for what that is worth).

    You're not going to get Republicans to bolt on their own party because "The Atlantic" says you should. Not unless you offer something more than "not-Trump". Which, so far, that appears to be the primary message of the Democratic party.

    I think the Democrats will win a lot during the mid-terms, but that's pretty normal (4 of the last 6 that's happened, and the two it didn't happen involved 9/11 and an impeachment). Winning the next Presidential election...that will be harder. The Democratic party needs to figure out it's identity. Are the the Identity Politics party, the moderate liberal party, or the progressive democratic-socialist party? Those three branches have been warring internally for a while now, and it's not getting any better. Their public message has been extremely mild and watery because of that, aside from "not-Trump". That's not a national message they can sell, so far.
    Their is irony with the bolded part. The Repulican party is the party of Identity Politics. The identity of White heterosexual Christians Nationalists gun owners. The position the Dems are taking is that non-Republicans (non-White heterosexual Christians Nationalists gun owners) should have the same rights and same opportunities as Republicans. It isn't identity politics. It is position to it when you think about it.

    Oops. Taking to Misty here. No thinking involded. Carry on.
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • #5
    With the exception of 2 consecutive surveys (Jul 27-31, Aug 1-3) at 39%, Rasmussen has never rated Trump's approval rating below 40%. It has historically rated President Trump higher than the majority of pollsters. It would be interesting to figure out which pollster most accurately represents his true approval rating since many had failed to accurately predict the election.

    Rasmussen_Trump_Approval.jpg

  • #6
    CNN had him at 35% this past week. FiveThirtyEight has him at 39.8% right now, and they were the least bad of the predictors in the last election (damning with faint praise to be sure).

    I don't really disagree with any of the rest of Misty's assessment. The Democrats have a little bit of a split personality, but they always have. The Republicans always tend to cohere more, and they are cohering around Trump.
    We've always been at war with Eastasia.
    If other people's pain didn't amuse me, I wouldn't be a GM. -barsoomcore

  • #7
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    So, how many of you have actually read the article so far?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #8
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,099

    Ignore User
    You mean after fixing your broken-ass link?

    I get what they're saying, and completely reject their conclusion. If you want to stick a fork in the GOP, you vote straight line 3rd party. It's the only method that historically kills a party in the US (replacing the fallen party with a new version of "Not Democrats").

    Also, massive 3rd party votes are the only way we're going to get viable election reform so we can finally kill winner-take-all elections with fire. Ending that system is the only way we can break the partisanship rut we are stuck in long term.

  • #9
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    You mean after fixing your broken-ass link?
    Meh, blame this cuntsuck of a website for fucking that up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    I get what they're saying, and completely reject their conclusion. If you want to stick a fork in the GOP, you vote straight line 3rd party. It's the only method that historically kills a party in the US (replacing the fallen party with a new version of "Not Democrats").

    Also, massive 3rd party votes are the only way we're going to get viable election reform so we can finally kill winner-take-all elections with fire. Ending that system is the only way we can break the partisanship rut we are stuck in long term.
    Wow, how little you understand about politics is just stunning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #10
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,394

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kzach View Post
    Meh, blame this cuntsuck of a website for fucking that up.


    Wow, how little you understand about politics is just stunning.
    Yeah the Australian telling the Americans they just don't understand American politics as well as he does.

    Truly I am sometimes surprised you're not a fan of Trump
    I like hats.

  • #11
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,099

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kzach View Post
    ...Wow, how little you understand about politics is just stunning.
    Go ahead - Aussiesplain it to me.

  • #12
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    Go ahead - Aussiesplain it to me.
    Your third-party vote is totally not wasted, comrade.

    Trust me, would I lie to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #13
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,394

    Ignore User
    You have a lack of knowledge concerning the history of political parties in the U.S.. Not that, as an Australian, you would be expected to know our history here. But the argument you're responding to concerns how we replace political parties in the U.S., historically speaking. And it generally is in fact from a large number voting for a third party which ends up replacing a major party. Both the Democratic party and the Republican party did this. We don't have the Federalist party or the Whig party anymore, though both were major parties. Nor do we have the anti-Federalists or the Democratic-Republicans, which were also both major political parties in the U.S..
    Last edited by Mistwell; March 2nd, 2018 at 03:28 AM.
    I like hats.

  • #14
    Girls Gone Spoony! Spoony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Province
    Knoxville TN
    Oratio
    6,653

    Ignore User
    The Atlantic prides itself on being neutral. I'm not so sure, but I've accused them of being right wing before so maybe they are.

    As for what this means for the Regressives - I can't say for sure - but I don't know if their current course is tenable. In a bid to get something "positive" out in the news Trump is forging ahead with starting a trade war. Traditionally this has been a Democrat plank, and promising to upend NAFTA is what won him Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and basically the election - but it's a plank the establishment Regressives are already howling about in pain. As long as Trump continues to control the party they have no pull. Their best hope is to pull off some of the remaining centrist Democrats from the left wing fringe and strike off. If they are remotely successful whoever they leave behind will implode. Now whether they try to take the tarnished for at least a generation "Republican" brand remains to be seen. Could go either way.

    In either event, in the USA it's "meet the new conservatives - same as the old conservatives" Before the Republicans it was Whigs, before that it was Federalists. On both the prior two implosions it wasn't the Democrats that destroyed the party - they destroyed themselves and the protesters took total control as the 2nd party within three 2 year election cycles. The Republicans have got to kick the racist Dixiecrats out - that's 90% of Trump's base - before they push everyone else out of the party.

    And honestly, I don't get why the Regressives are so afraid of them. It's not like they'll vote Democrat. At worst they'll just stay home. Eventually they'll come crawlying back when they realize the Regressive party is the only one that's going to furnish even some of their demands.

    Aside from this article though, I wonder if the wind is changing. Hope Hicks left, and that leave Trump with only Ivanka, Kushner and Clarkson as close confidants. My money is on Clarkson taking the Communications director post. Also, I think Kelly is going to lose this fight he's picking with "Javnaka".

    It's a losing proposition either way. Without Hicks or Javanka to stabilize him, Trump will most likely tweet something incriminating in a fit of rage that will force even the recalcitrant Regressives to consider impeachment behind closed doors. If Kelly goes then the dirt on Javanka's business dealings will drag Trump down.

    Maybe. Possibly. Fuck, what the Hell do I know? The only thing is certain - as his inner circle dwindles Trump will become more mercurial and dangerous to himself and others. I know this from personal experience - A person is always at their worst when they feel alone and cornered.

    I will say this for Hope Hicks. I feel sorry for her. If news reports are to believed Trump cursed her six ways from Sunday over her "white lies" comment Tuesday. I've had a boss that I kinda liked do that, and it really hurts to have years of loyalty betrayed and being verbally abused for a relatively minor slip up. When an unaccountable boss crosses the line like that the only thing you can do is "fire" them by quitting your job even if you'd rather stay. It hurts like Hell.

  • #15
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoony View Post
    The Atlantic prides itself on being neutral. I'm not so sure, but I've accused them of being right wing before so maybe they are.
    The Atlantic are very slightly left leaning according to most measures but they're a very trustworthy source when it comes to factual content and sourcing opinions and editing for their articles. I haven't seen Mistswell's comments here but I'm betting they're something along the lines of criticising the source and posting something from the Federalist or Drudge and claiming it as unbiased refutation. That, or something equally as stupid.

    Regardless, these guys (the writers, not The Atlantic) have a very well established and very well respected position of authority on political issues as being as non-partisan as possible; when even they are saying, "Wtf? This shit's getting out of hand," then even the idiots should probably stop and think for a second.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •