Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's all the lame-stream media's fault. As Ty well knows, O'Donnell won the debate and revealed Coon's lack of knowledge of the first amendment. If only the lame-stream media hadn't posted the tape of the debate, we'd know the truth.

Here is the new reality: While we once understood that the great uninformed mass of idiots who make up so much of this country would not vote for an uninformed idiot to represent them, those idiots have come to realize that candidates with actual knowledge didn't vote like the idiots they represent (mostly on social issues, but now it's become every issue the uniformed are told they care about). So today, it makes almost no difference whatsoever whether you are an idiot candidate who says incredibly stupid things. All that matters is that uninformed idiot voters recognize that their uninformed idiot candidates are "like" them or will vote down the line based entirely on religion or conservative views on social issues. Therefore, and here's the rub, any media exposure--no matter how harmful it would seem to anyone with half a brain--is beneficial.

O'Donnell would never ever have gained traction 10-20 years ago. She would have been ignored by the media as an idiotic kook and the uninformed would not have cared. Now, she can say "I pray every day about why the elite want to separate church and state" and that message will be carried to her base of uninformed idiots. She cares not whether people understand that she's a moron on this or any other issue because the people who actually understand the substance of any given issue wouldn't vote for her in the first place. She just wants to be a household name, like Palin, which ensures an increasing number of votes the longer she remains so (no matter what she says).

TM

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Here is the new reality: While we once understood that the great uninformed mass of idiots who make up so much of this country would not vote for an uninformed idiot to represent them, those idiots have come to realize that candidates with actual knowledge didn't vote like the idiots they represent (mostly on social issues, but now it's become every issue the uniformed are told they care about). So today, it makes almost no difference whatsoever whether you are an idiot candidate who says incredibly stupid things. All that matters is that uninformed idiot voters recognize that their uninformed idiot candidates are "like" them or will vote down the line based entirely on religion or conservative views on social issues. Therefore, and here's the rub, any media exposure--no matter how harmful it would seem to anyone with half a brain--is beneficial.

O'Donnell would never ever have gained traction 10-20 years ago. She would have been ignored by the media as a idiotic kook and the uninformed would not have cared. Now, she can say "I pray every day about why the elite want to separate church and state" and that message will be carried to her base of uninformed idiots. She cares not whether people understand that she's a moron on this or any other issue because the people who actually understand the substance of any given issue wouldn't vote for her in the first place. She just wants to be a household name, like Palin, which ensures an increasing number of votes the longer she remains so (no matter what she says).

TM

Are you suggesting that, 10-20 years ago, she would have been an excellent candidate for the Rents 2 Damn High party? Because I don't see that her crazy is quite up to that standard, although she certainly is stupid enough.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Here is the new reality: While we once understood that the great uninformed mass of idiots who make up so much of this country would not vote for an uninformed idiot to represent them, those idiots have come to realize that candidates with actual knowledge didn't vote like the idiots they represent (mostly on social issues, but now it's become every issue the uniformed are told they care about). So today, it makes almost no difference whatsoever whether you are an idiot candidate who says incredibly stupid things. All that matters is that uninformed idiot voters recognize that their uninformed idiot candidates are "like" them or will vote down the line based entirely on religion or conservative views on social issues. Therefore, and here's the rub, any media exposure--no matter how harmful it would seem to anyone with half a brain--is beneficial.

O'Donnell would never ever have gained traction 10-20 years ago. She would have been ignored by the media as a idiotic kook and the uninformed would not have cared. Now, she can say "I pray every day about why the elite want to separate church and state" and that message will be carried to her base of uninformed idiots. She cares not whether people understand that she's a moron on this or any other issue because the people who actually understand the substance of any given issue wouldn't vote for her in the first place. She just wants to be a household name, like Palin, which ensures an increasing number of votes the longer she remains so (no matter what she says).

TM

The US has always had waves of political action based on total idiocy. The know-nothing party was one of the best named. McCarthyism may have been one of the most successful, with lots of slogans and hysteria and disregard for (as well as disinterest in) the facts. Usually, they fall short - they catch on, they capture a chunk of the vote for an election or two, and then they fade. They're scary for a while and then dissipate of their own accord.

So are we in that "scary for a while" period, or will this one be different, and push someone all the way to the white house and get ongoing traction in more than one election? The realistic possibility that it's the second is part of what makes it so damn scary. If there's a 5 member tea party caucus in the Senate after a single election, which is probably likely at this point, they'll be well on their way.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Here is the new reality: While we once understood that the great uninformed mass of idiots who make up so much of this country would not vote for an uninformed idiot to represent them, those idiots have come to realize that candidates with actual knowledge didn't vote like the idiots they represent (mostly on social issues, but now it's become every issue the uniformed are told they care about). So today, it makes almost no difference whatsoever whether you are an idiot candidate who says incredibly stupid things. All that matters is that uninformed idiot voters recognize that their uninformed idiot candidates are "like" them or will vote down the line based entirely on religion or conservative views on social issues. Therefore, and here's the rub, any media exposure--no matter how harmful it would seem to anyone with half a brain--is beneficial.

O'Donnell would never ever have gained traction 10-20 years ago. She would have been ignored by the media as an idiotic kook and the uninformed would not have cared. Now, she can say "I pray every day about why the elite want to separate church and state" and that message will be carried to her base of uninformed idiots. She cares not whether people understand that she's a moron on this or any other issue because the people who actually understand the substance of any given issue wouldn't vote for her in the first place. She just wants to be a household name, like Palin, which ensures an increasing number of votes the longer she remains so (no matter what she says).

TM

There are two mindsets behind those who support Palins and O'Donnells.

First are the cynics. I have argued at length, bitterly, with GOP friends and family about the need to rid the party of people like Palin - about how she damages the country and makes abject stupidity a badge of honor. In return, I'm repeatedly reminded people like her are cannon fodder, infantry. They're idiots, but "our idiots." They go to war with an army of the deluded to protect low taxation policies for people like you and me.*

Second are the disenfranchised and confused. Palin speaks to the simple voter who wants to run a country on faith. They don't want to hear nuanced positions. They want certainty and she offers it. Converting the religious to agnosticism or atheism is about as easy as changing their sex. The more information creates doubt, the more they run to the comfort of the certain, and see the people challenging their views not as neutral skeptics, but enemies. I think Palin's a stand-in for an amorphous, but very strong sense of longing people used to fill with religion and strong localized moral codes. Stir that desire for certainty - that innate need people of limited thought have to control and understand the inscrutable world around them - with populist ire and you get a potent stew of righteous ignorance reflexively impervious to anything but its own orthodoxy.

Figure out how to cure the mental defects of a biblical literalist and you'll figure out how to bring an O'Donnell supporter to truth. Good luck with that.

*I generally find this argument persuasive. Palin and O'Donnell, however, are new lows. I don't think the minimal tax savings accrued from their emergence on the political landscape approaches the damage they do to our already pathetic culture.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Here is the new reality: While we once understood that the great uninformed mass of idiots who make up so much of this country would not vote for an uninformed idiot to represent them, those idiots have come to realize that candidates with actual knowledge didn't vote like the idiots they represent (mostly on social issues, but now it's become every issue the uniformed are told they care about). So today, it makes almost no difference whatsoever whether you are an idiot candidate who says incredibly stupid things. All that matters is that uninformed idiot voters recognize that their uninformed idiot candidates are "like" them or will vote down the line based entirely on religion or conservative views on social issues. Therefore, and here's the rub, any media exposure--no matter how harmful it would seem to anyone with half a brain--is beneficial.

O'Donnell would never ever have gained traction 10-20 years ago. She would have been ignored by the media as an idiotic kook and the uninformed would not have cared. Now, she can say "I pray every day about why the elite want to separate church and state" and that message will be carried to her base of uninformed idiots. She cares not whether people understand that she's a moron on this or any other issue because the people who actually understand the substance of any given issue wouldn't vote for her in the first place. She just wants to be a household name, like Palin, which ensures an increasing number of votes the longer she remains so (no matter what she says).

TM

She doesn't have traction. In a great year for Republicans and wingnuts, she's going to lose big.

The media keep talking about her because she's great entertainment. The Senate race in Wisconsin is much closer, but no one wants to cover it because the Republican candidate is boring. Hell, the Senate race in California is much closer and Carly Fiorina is many things other than boring, but Delaware is easy to get to from D.C. and an easy state to cover.

This is what happens when we leave the production of news to a for-profit, double-sided market that gets its revenue from advertisers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

First are the cynics. I have argued at length, bitterly, with GOP friends and family about the need to rid the party of people like Palin - about how she damages the country and makes abject stupidity a badge of honor. In return, I'm repeatedly reminded people like her are cannon fodder, infantry. They're idiots, but "our idiots." They go to war with an army of the deluded to protect low taxation policies for people like you and me.*

You might point out to your friends and family that to spend is to tax. The Republicans aren't lowering taxes. They're just pushing them into the future.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are two mindsets behind those who support Palins and O'Donnells.

First are the cynics. I have argued at length, bitterly, with GOP friends and family about the need to rid the party of people like Palin - about how she damages the country and makes abject stupidity a badge of honor. In return, I'm repeatedly reminded people like her are cannon fodder, infantry. They're idiots, but "our idiots." They go to war with an army of the deluded to protect low taxation policies for people like you and me.*

Second are the disenfranchised and confused. Palin speaks to the simple voter who wants to run a country on faith. They don't want to hear nuanced positions. They want certainty and she offers it. Converting the religious to agnosticism or atheism is about as easy as changing their sex. The more information creates doubt, the more they run to the comfort of the certain, and see the people challenging their views not as neutral skeptics, but enemies. I think Palin's a stand-in for an amorphous, but very strong sense of longing people used to fill with religion and strong localized moral codes. Stir that desire for certainty - that innate need people of limited thought have to control and understand the inscrutable world around them - with populist ire and you get a potent stew of righteous ignorance reflexively impervious to anything but its own orthodoxy.

Figure out how to cure the mental defects of a biblical literalist and you'll figure out how to bring an O'Donnell supporter to truth. Good luck with that.

*I generally find this argument persuasive. Palin and O'Donnell, however, are new lows. I don't think the minimal tax savings accrued from their emergence on the political landscape approaches the damage they do to our already pathetic culture.

I remember how offended Rs have been in the past at being thought of as the party of stupid. But now, they embrace it. They wave it like a flag. Rally the idiots! Grab the big corporate checks and get the usual imbeciles on screen at Fox!

Won't this ever damage the brand? How stupid do you have to be and run for office before it's not condescending to point out the obvious?

Chris Coons is obviously looking to dumb it down to avoid appearing overly condescending. I think Reid has been doing the same thing. I admit, Conway's not.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Are you suggesting that, 10-20 years ago, she would have been an excellent candidate for the Rents 2 Damn High party? Because I don't see that her crazy is quite up to that standard, although she certainly is stupid enough.

Are you trying to suggest that rent isn't too damn high?

TM

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Are you trying to suggest that rent isn't too damn high?

TM

I see that rent for a studio apartment just went up to $3,750/month throughout the 5 boroughs, so no, I am not saying that it isn't too damn high, but I DO want to know what that has to do with the establishment clause.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You might point out to your friends and family that to spend is to tax. The Republicans aren't lowering taxes. They're just pushing them into the future.

The formula is this:

Get what you can now because who knows whether it'll be available tomorrow.

It's an elementary principle of business. If what's on the table now is a decent offer, you take it. Here, the formula is take it, grow it, shelter it from future taxes as best you can and pass it on to the kids.

I'll take equity in personal injury cases because they pay off down the road. Contract cases with no insurance coverage? I wouldn't touch contingent comm lit with a ten foot poll. Same applies to tax issues. Calculate it in your head. There might be future costs associated with taking all you can today. And there might not be. No one knows for certain, as it is a prognostication of the "dismal science." The rational thought, the micro-level time value of money argument that matters most, is grab all you can and try to beat a return out of it exceeding all reasonably projected future tax burdens.

You might be wrong. But you're wrong now with cash in hand, and in times like this, anyone arguing against front-loading and hoarding has lost his fucking mind.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The formula is this:

Get what you can now because who knows whether it'll be available tomorrow.

It's an elementary principle of business. If what's on the table now is a decent offer, you take it. Here, the formula is take it, grow it, shelter it from future taxes as best you can and pass it on to the kids.

I'll take equity in personal injury cases because they pay off down the road. Contract cases with no insurance coverage? I wouldn't touch contingent comm lit with a ten foot poll. Same applies to tax issues. Calculate it in your head. There might be future costs associated with taking all you can today. And there might not be. No one knows for certain, as it is a prognostication of the "dismal science." The rational thought, the micro-level time value of money argument that matters most, is grab all you can and try to beat a return out of it exceeding all reasonably projected future tax burdens.

You might be wrong. But you're wrong now with cash in hand, and in times like this, anyone arguing against front-loading and hoarding has lost his fucking mind.

So, please to explain: Why do the Republicans hate America?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Here is the new reality: While we once understood that the great uninformed mass of idiots who make up so much of this country would not vote for an uninformed idiot to represent them, those idiots have come to realize that candidates with actual knowledge didn't vote like the idiots they represent (mostly on social issues, but now it's become every issue the uniformed are told they care about). So today, it makes almost no difference whatsoever whether you are an idiot candidate who says incredibly stupid things. All that matters is that uninformed idiot voters recognize that their uninformed idiot candidates are "like" them or will vote down the line based entirely on religion or conservative views on social issues. Therefore, and here's the rub, any media exposure--no matter how harmful it would seem to anyone with half a brain--is beneficial.

O'Donnell would never ever have gained traction 10-20 years ago. She would have been ignored by the media as an idiotic kook and the uninformed would not have cared. Now, she can say "I pray every day about why the elite want to separate church and state" and that message will be carried to her base of uninformed idiots. She cares not whether people understand that she's a moron on this or any other issue because the people who actually understand the substance of any given issue wouldn't vote for her in the first place. She just wants to be a household name, like Palin, which ensures an increasing number of votes the longer she remains so (no matter what she says).

TM

There should be an IQ test to be on the ballot. Minimum 130 and above?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Are you suggesting that, 10-20 years ago, she would have been an excellent candidate for the Rents 2 Damn High party? Because I don't see that her crazy is quite up to that standard, although she certainly is stupid enough.

I think I may have hooked up with her during the NH primaries 20 years ago, give or take.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The US has always had waves of political action based on total idiocy. The know-nothing party was one of the best named. McCarthyism may have been one of the most successful, with lots of slogans and hysteria and disregard for (as well as disinterest in) the facts. Usually, they fall short - they catch on, they capture a chunk of the vote for an election or two, and then they fade. They're scary for a while and then dissipate of their own accord.
.

I voted for Perot. Twice.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You might point out to your friends and family that to spend is to tax. The Republicans aren't lowering taxes. They're just pushing them into the future.

except if at some point America dies, it's debt go away too. A lot of us are thinking you all are on course to kill this country, so why worry about debt 100 years from now?