Will Democrats lose for a decade or go far-right?

Post Reply New Topic

Perfectly understandable. But then you guys had better stop interfering in other countries' business. And stop with the "leader of the free world" BS.

The US doesn't meddle in other country's politics?

Fast and Furious seemed like a plot to show that US gun laws are responsible for the violence in Mexico and therefore we should restrict Americans access to them.

Once the country goes completely far right is when the Democrats will make a speedy and miraculous comeback. People will not be happy with a government that goes too far to the right. They never have been. That's why we have what we have now. People don't like austerity. They might squawk about it for a bit but when it comes right down to actually living it, the masses won't do that.

When the USA does that, we get accused of being isolationist.

Not by me.

That's pretty much the conclusion I came to when this first surfaced. There was no other logical reason for what they were doing and the way they were doing it.

That's one of the privileges of being a superpower nation.
And, no, foreigners have no vote in our elections (the democrats are working hard to change that, though).

It is fundamentally wrong for there to be superpower nations.

The reason why the US intervenes is because it perceives it's interests and the interests of international stability to be tied in with those actions. These matters get incredibly complicated, because every other power is trying to take advantage of these situations. Isolationism may be justifiable, but US intervention may have harmed people, but it probably has also aided the balance of power of nations in other instances as well.


It is rhetoric. Part of the issue is that it reflects the reality that the US has power.


That's great, but it has no connection to reality. It is also fundamentally wrong that people be jerks, but trying to fundamentally alter that reality is unlikely. The simple issue is that people with power will never willingly give it up, and the reason why they will not tend to is because they are justified in believing that it's better they have the power than their opponents. If you were a dictator, would you give up that power so that way you could share it with George Bush? No. Now, you may hate the idea of dictatorship in the abstract, but in every single political action, you will likely act towards making the world a better place in your eyes, and that will require that you increase your power so that you can achieve this end, and that kind of problem is part of the real issue.

... Am I missing something?

My point was that you can't use being a superpower to justify actions and claim that they are right. A world without superpowers might not be possible (although it most definitely won't be if we all keep believe that) but that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong for one country to hold such power over another. Raptor's logic, when carried out to its conclusion, says that the USSR was right to occupy Hungary and Czechoslovakia when these countries tried to make democratic reforms. It doesn't matter that the USSR was crushing democracy and working in a way contrary to the United States; the Soviet Union was a superpower and therefore it was entitled to act this way. At the very least one should admit that these sorts of policies are unfortunate, even if they are viewed as necessary.

Doesn't matter, no one can prove that the money was the decisive factor, that Walker "bought" the election, any more than I can prove that he didn't; I wasn't advancing a theory but shooting one down.

I also notice that you weren't exactly Johnny on the spot with the whole null hypothesis and such when M_P was advancing a theory, that you happen to agree with, that is just as much debunked by it as my linked article. That's OK, I'm well aware of your biases and such, but just remember it next time you want to harass me about selective responses.

Also, the harder evidence I'm working with is the election numbers, in case you missed it.

AstroGeek wrote:

It’s the way of the world we live in. And if I have to live in that world I’d rather do so as a citizen and resident of said superpower than live in a country that's not only to be crushed between two superpowers. It's a matter of practicality.



And if it weren’t for the United States being a super power (plus our NATO allies) it’s a real good bet there would have been a lot more of (or all of) Europe swallowed up by the USSR.

Last edited by Raptor on 24 Jun 2012, 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not having enough money can really hurt a campaign but after a certain amount, it's just diminishing returns. If you could buy an election against public opinion then we'd have a senator Meg Whitman and Linda McMahon who both spent like $50 million each of their own money in their attempt to be elected in 2010.

The democrats already are far right.

I'm saying the argument you presented doesn't shoot anything down. If money was as ineffective as the author and you were trying to claim, people wouldn't be spending it.


Evidence of what? You never demonstrated that advertizing doesn't have a significant effect.

The thing I have a problem with you is you love to lecture others but can't stand it if you're ever shown to be wrong in anything. Sorry, but I have little sympathy for narcissism. I'm not going to walk on eggshells around your damn ego.