The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central How the world sees Republicans

Derid, I am not looking forward to another semantics/nitpicking fight, last one was outright unpleasant and detracted from otherwise engaging argument. I ask you to temper your dismissive attitude and suggest we discuss issue of this topic.

They are:

1. Current set of republican candidates
2. Radicalization of Republican party and ongoing slide toward extreme right fringe

Have you seen recent Rick Perry attack adds?

Interesting that you call our semantics discussion "simpleton" , when the meaning of the words used was relevant to the discussion. Again, you present data - and I simply put it in proper context.

As for the article - if you want to treat this as a serious discussion bound by all the fine rules of formal logic -

First - your post title " How the World sees the GOP"
One article from a leftist German magazine is not "The World"

Second - It attacked Mitt Romney for being frequently inconsistent. However, it did not provide any evidence or examples. This would be because it was a bald-faced lie. Unless you find switching a governmental stance on abortion a decade ago, cause to make such an accusation. Of course the article played it off like it was a common occurrence.

Third - It called Paul crazy. Interesting observation. Surely, they would attack Pauls less-war, less-bureaucracy position with some facts or reasons why it was crazy. Um... no.

So we have a magazine launching ad hominim attacks at candidates, yet providing absolutely zero reasons, even anecdotal ones as to why something is crazy.

The article frequently takes lines from the worst of the candidates, then attempts to use those lines to paint broad generalizations on their competitors in the race. What horseshit.

Article: "The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein."

So Paul and Mitt make George W look like Einstein, simply because Cain and Perry were clueless?

Your article got dismissed because it is drivel written in a very insulting, misleading, and plain dishonest style - apparently for the purpose of misleading people into agreeing with their point of view.

You want an article to get some respect, post a respectable article.

Posting a Perry Youtube means nothing, because I actually agreed with the article regarding Perry. The problem with the article, is it tried to use Perry and others to paint a picture of the people who are running against him.

Free Hint:

You want to find some respectable article to discuss, go check out The Atlantic. They lean pretty left much of the time, but at least most of their staff is competent and can actually cook up a point of view in a well written manner that doesn't rely on Fox-style unsubstantiated hit-pieces.

Fuck it, I will help you out on this one.

Some examples of articles by left leaning writers that dont actually suck:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...a-party/249534/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/newt-gingrich-populist-technocrat/249462/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/has-fox-news-been-good-for-conservatives/249353/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...me-only/249096/

Here, a random sampling of articles - some I have read, some I have not. But as best I can tell, and from the ones I have read - all are, or are likely to be reasonably well written critiques of the Right.

Take your pick, or find another one. Just try to find something that isnt a blatantly dishonest broadside.

The article absolutely "attempts to use those lines to paint broad generalizations", there is no doubt about it and this is exactly how world sees US Conservative Right. Simple reality is that candidates like Trump, Bachmann, and Cain were in the running, were seriously considered at some point, and had substantial support base tells volumes about current state of Republicans and Right. All of this is further compounded by pants-on-your-head-insane primary process where candidates are forces (or some just naturally are) to appeal to extreme right or face RINO execution squad. All of this isn't a slam on a specific candidate, but rather slam on the state of GOP and its supporters with individual examples used as evidence. I can't help you if you find this insulting, this is how your bedfellows operate.

I dont think Trump was ever considered seriously, and other candidates fell after their lack of seriousness became apparent. Anyone can file papers and hold press conferences and start a candidacy.

Judge the field by the nominee, not by the random bumps as people get considered and discarded.

Even if a liberal German paper does in fact represent the World.. so what? Last I looked, they have their own problems out in Euro Land.

Anyhow, I hope you at least read some of what I linked you, I can find other sources if you want. It would be healthy to at least learn what a real piece of critical journalism looks like.

It isn't just some "liberal German paper", when I travel abroad I encounter such sentiments everywhere.

Here is some more 'entertainment' for you:



Your links are interesting, keep them coming. Specifically, I am looking for conservative-leaning, but still objective perspective. It used to be WSJ, but since Murdoch took over its non-financial section turned into yellow rag.

Bolton is an idiot.

The problem with your narrative here, is there are plenty of Leftists who are just as idiotic. I suppose we could get into a competition as to who could post the most idiots, but it hardly seems worthwhile.

My personal hope is for the currently stalled reformation of the GOP to get restarted and continue, because while more than half of the GOP are terrible - I find it hard to find any Dems who arent.

Things arent looking good right now though. The only real hope if for Paul to gain traction and bring attention to the state of things, and, even if he loses - create an environment where his supporters continue taking part in the process and holding some peoples feet to the fire.

The TP looked like it was set to take on that role for a short period of time, but in many cases has instead morphed into a sad echo chamber for Evangelical religious Statists. I mean, you cant be for Newt Gingrich and still be a true Tea Partier.

Do you think Tea Party movement was ever real? I see it as Koch astroturfing effort, they bankroll it, they define message and look at the result - Republicans committing political suicides left and right to keep taxes on the rich lower than historical lows.

Oh it was real. Still is to an extend... the next few months will show to exactly what extend. Its really very local, and actually kind of complicated. There are many, many Tea Parties.. though there are a handful of web presences.

Also, there are two Kochs - Charles Koch is actually pretty Libertarian, even ran as LP VP once.

I disagree about maintaining tax cuts for the rich being political suicide.

However, that being said. After extending tax cuts for the rich, if the GOP lets the payroll tax cut on the rest of us expire - then we will see how real the TP is. Saying spending should be cut instead of raising taxes on anyone is one thing. Saying keeping low taxes on the wealthy, but raising taxes on the rest of us because we "need the revenue"... if that happens, we will see how real the Tea Party truly is.