Wow, you sound beaten down.

Honestly, does this surprise you? Republicans have successfully exploited the Tea Party movement, and they mastered the politics of fear ages ago. Now they have a bunch of people pissing their pants, who honestly believe our president is a Manchurian candidate who wants to take away their guns, kill granny with death panels, and put them in FEMA camps. When you're up against that kind of ignorance, can the voice of reason successfully penetrate their gray matter? Not when the audience is wearing Patriot Pampers.

democracy requires democratic institutions.
you can't have a democracy when it's trivially easy to buy voters, or deceive them.

What if you trust neither Republicans nor Democrats to "make the right decision" or trust them on the "economy"? Where would our vote go? Is it that kind of poll that limits you to only two options? Then that, sir, is a terrible poll.

Hey @blankfist do you prefer plague or cholera? There are no other options!

@NetRunner it is indeed disheartening, but honestly not all that unexpected. Americans are actively encouraged to become dumber and dumber with the "anti-elitist" narrative running on most channels (notably fox). "I'm not an expert, but here's my opinion..." arrgh.

>> ^blankfist:

What if you trust neither Republicans nor Democrats to "make the right decision" or trust them on the "economy"? Where would our vote go? Is it that kind of poll that limits you to only two options? Then that, sir, is a terrible poll.


Yet it accurately reflects our terrible political system.

Who ya gonna call?

>> ^blankfist:

What if you trust neither Republicans nor Democrats to "make the right decision" or trust them on the "economy"? Where would our vote go? Is it that kind of poll that limits you to only two options? Then that, sir, is a terrible poll.


No, that is the American political system.

The American political system is not an either/or ultimatum. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil. That poll is about as staunchly binary as it gets.

>> ^blankfist:

The American political system is not an either/or ultimatum. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil. That poll is about as staunchly binary as it gets.


I know you're still in hardcore TL;DR mode, but click through to the raw poll data to see the massive amount of support for "Other" or just "neither" that's not directly represented in this graph. It's a whopping 3% who intend to vote for a 3rd party, and 17% who say they trust neither party.

The only binary question was a follow-up of whether they think it's better for Democrats to have a controlling majority (and thus keep putting forward Obama's policies), or for Republicans to have a controlling majority (and thus stop Obama's policies). That's the one that's really weird, since you had a contrast between the "who will you vote for" question, where 46% said they'd vote Democratic, but only 43% wanted them to have control, vs. 47% who planned to vote Republican, but 51% wanted Republicans in control.

I suppose there are 3% of people who plan to vote for a Democrat but want Republicans to take control? Weirdness.

I also love seeing how stupid people are about connecting concrete policies with electoral outcomes. 62% want UI benefits extended. I'd love to see the percentage of who wants that to happen and is voting for a Republican anyways.

TL;DR

I don't think it's the lesser of two evils. I think it's the least evil out of a lot of people.

There's these primary and caucus thingies that we also vote in, which starts with dozens of people, and gets whittled down to only a couple major party candidates. Don't discount the primaries.

Also, I wish people would look at graphs like this one before voting.

This really isn't a measure of what it seems.
Since [most of the time] democrats simply don't trust republican leaders and vice versa, you can assume that the trustING are in the same party as the trustED almost all the time.

You should look at "who you intend to vote for" and set that equal to 100% for each party and look at the other two questions as a percentage of that within that party.

Under this analysis, republicans are more wary of their leaders than democrats are of theirs', but that doesn't change the fact that very few people are willing to vote against their own party, that is, the party that fits with their ideology. That makes a TON of sense to me in our current system and explains the apparently confusing results of the polling.

>> ^Doc_M:

...republicans are more wary of their leaders than democrats are of theirs'....


How do you figure?

The Left is far more critical of Obama than the Right ever was of Bush.

There are still cons out there who insist Iraq had WMDs.

And very few if any of them lay the blame of the deficit on Bush's shoulders.

@Doc_M, to rephrase what you're saying in a way that's perhaps more objective, it's certainly true that a much larger percentage of conservatives are likely to answer "I don't trust either party" in polls, even if they reliably go into the voting booths to give the Republican party power.

The big problem is that they don't find that to be contradictory in the slightest.

I also think you're entirely wrong about Republicans being more wary of their leaders. When conservatives tell their followers something blatantly false like "tax cuts increase revenue", you all fall in line, and either defend, or at least refuse to repudiate it as false.

When Obama says something that's merely positively spun like "this historic health care legislation will bring care to tens of millions more Americans", he gets ripped apart by the left saying "but not as many as would've gotten it with single payer, corporate sellout!"

Maybe I'm blurring the lines between trust and loyalty, but it seems like the right is always loyal to the Republicans and their mythology about conservative governance, whereas the left can't seem to muster the loyalty to just nod their heads in agreement to factually accurate statements with a positive spin.

"The Left is far more critical of Obama than the Right ever was of Bush."

Bush's approval rating was terribly low... That wasn't all liberals.
It is definitely true that the far right wing is not critical enough of its leaders, but there is plainly a large population of republicans that are not in the far right category. Also, in the current political climate, republicans seem to have been less and less satisfied with just about all current politicians.
The far right has had a worshiper mentality about their leadership. It's annoying.
The far left, on the other hand, are never satisfied with their leaders because they don't go far enough. The tea party has recently taken up this attitude as well. In their eyes, the right has not gone far enough either.

"There are still cons out there who insist Iraq had WMDs."
True, but on the other side, there are plenty of liberals that believe things that are equally outlandish... 9/11 comes to mind.

"And very few if any of them lay the blame of the deficit on Bush's shoulders."
True, but that level of economics is extraordinarily complicated, given the sheer number of variables. I don't really understand it well enough to form much of a solid stance... and I think more people should be willing to admit that honestly. Economically, people stand on ideology more than evidence. A "small government" person, such as myself, will always lean toward lower taxes and less government involvement in every day life... which in theory might work economically since a smaller government would cost less. A "large government" person supports higher taxes and more social and economic government involvement, which in theory might work economically as well... It's ideological. People start with the ideology and their image of the perfect government, then fit an economic model that will support it. (I should note that these two groups don't necessarily belong in one or the other party exclusively). That view of the perfect government trumps just about everything else, and maybe rightly so. In theory, each system could be made to work if done right, so the question is not how to fix the economy, but how to do so within a specific, underlying ideology.

"it's certainly true that a much larger percentage of conservatives are likely to answer "I don't trust either party" in polls, even if they reliably go into the voting booths to give the Republican party power.
The big problem is that they don't find that to be contradictory in the slightest."

Lesser of two weevils voters. It's not really contradictory. They stay with their party because of worldview-based judgments of which party stands more in line with their stance on the majority of issues... this of course excludes people who just don't really think much about it and just plop their vote in where they always have... or where it's "hip" with their crowd.

"...there is plainly a large population of republicans that are not in the far right category."

You'd never know it by watching the news, reading the paper, or listening to the radio. I have yet to personally meet a moderate Republican. They'll call themselves moderate, but they almost always support the exact same legislative measures that the likes of the Tea Party calls for. They all supported the wars. They all ignored the massive defense spending which bloated our deficit.

"...the far left..."

In our media and according to most conservatives, everybody on the left is considered "the far left." Hyperbole has become the standard attack mode of the right to such an extent that they leave themselves no room to negotiate. Once they label their opponents as being socialist, communist, or baby-killers, they leave themselves no recourse but to follow through on their plans and to block every single measure of even the slightest progressive significance even if it means hurting the economy, or forcing people to starve or go homeless.

"...9/11 comes to mind."

Yeah, one of the worst attacks on our country, the investigation of which was blocked by the Bush administration every step of the way from the very start. Nothing to see there. Move along.

"True, but that level of economics is extraordinarily complicated, given the sheer number of variables."

Groups of variables are often represented by a single sign or word. I can think of one word to sum up your observation: deregulation.

1) I've met tons of moderate republicans. I'm sure you have as well. The far-righties are just louder.
2) I'm referring to the far left as a person on the left would define them, not as one on the far right would.
3) Case in point. =/ I knew I should have picked a different example.
4) I don't know where you were going there. I was talking about the economy itself being complex and consisting of many variables itself, and that most people, myself included, don't fully understand it well enough to make an informed decision. My argument that followed was not about what stance on economic systems is right, it is about the reason why people vote the way they do on economic issues. My personal stance is irrelevant, and anyway, defining a large system of political viewpoints as one buzz-word isn't helpful to anyone... except perhaps media pundits.

1a) I've met tons of republicans who claim to be moderate, but the more you talk to them and learn about their politics, the clearer it is that they are only less vocal examples of the Tea Party.
2a) Point taken. I happen to be one of the far-left as defined by the left. They call me far-left because they don't think I'm reasonable. They don't think I'm reasonable because I'd rather vote for a candidate who represents my political beliefs rather than give my vote to their candidate without so much as a thanks for my effort.
3a) No prob. Lots of Libertarians think that 9/11 was an inside job, same as me.
4a) I think there's a difference between understanding every nuance of what happened to bring about the near total, catastrophic (and possibly still pending) collapse of our economy, and the general cause of that collapse. You don't have to understand derivatives in order to understand that they are the result of the financial deregulation lauded and birthed by the rightwing over the course of the past two decades.

@Doc_M, I noticed you didn't take on my central point about loyalty. What you're talking about is actually something I have always believed -- there aren't really independents who are truly independent in any large number in America. Left-leaning independents vote for Democrats as often as self-identified Democrats, and right-leaning independents vote for Republicans as often as self-identified Republicans, and true independents make up a very small share of the electorate. There's actually data to back that up.

But I'm talking about something much deeper than voting patterns -- I'm talking about "epistemic closure." I'm referring to the way conservatives get all their "facts" these days only from a select number of outlets that distort, misrepresent, or outright fabricate facts to vindicate their ideology, and treat all sources with different views as "liberal", and therefore "ideological", and therefore equivalent enough to say "opinions on the shape of earth differ," when in truth the "facts" cooked up by the right-wing media empire often have little or no connection to reality.

My example was "tax cuts increase tax revenue." That has zero basis in fact. Zero. It's not "that's too complicated an issue for us to know who's really right and wrong", it's just plainly, demonstrably false. If you cut taxes, it adds to the deficit. It can produce a small stimulative effect on the economy as a whole, which makes them slightly less expensive than a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation would indicate, but it never raises growth so much that the net effect is an increase in revenue.

Not to cross too much into your back & forth with rougy, but I would definitely say that there is no left wing equivalent of the "far right" -- at best, there is an actual American Socialist party, but they don't really have a voice in the mainstream liberal movement, and they certainly don't have 1-hour opinion shows on cable news networks, and hundreds of radio shows across the country. The real problem the left has is that 90% of the Democratic party seems to be to the right of their base. People who're in line with the Democratic base (e.g. Sherrod Brown, Anthony Weiner) are perpetually labeled "far left", not just by Republicans, but by Democratic leadership.

As for the 9/11 thing, again, it's a big difference. You don't have Democratic politicians saying "9/11 was an inside job", you don't have left-wing columnists continuing to speculate publicly that 9/11 was an inside job, and certainly you don't see left-wing people who say that getting invited on Sunday talk shows to talk about foreign policy.

Our conspiracy theorists get systematically frozen out, while the Republicans are happy to repeat every crackpot conspiracy theory on the floor of Congress, including trivially disproven stuff like "Obama was really born in Kenya."

You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons. Since BHO's election, we've got new months of data--hard evidence--that the left's schemes don't work, and in the ongoing example of Statist Europe, proof that going further left doesn't increase prosperity even as it reduces individual liberty to a speck.

If socialism "worked", the EU would be an economic powerhouse. Instead they are an economic powermouse. But that's the left's folly, measuring everything in terms of "equality". If everyone gets a dirty mattress in a filthy hospital with a 6-month wait, that's better than one guy with health insurance and another without.

FDR's follies now have to be repeated because government schools are--surprise!--pro-Big Government and anti-capitalist; warnings of FDR's failures go unheeded, if they're even pointed out at all.

In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”


Guess there was no other way to learn except by direct experience that government spending doesn't stimulate squat and oppressive wealth redistribution puts unearned money in the hands of the less capable who can't create anything with it.

One thing I'll never understand about the American far left (they exist, they're called communists) is why they simply don't pack up and move to Europe. I'm not saying love it or leave it, it's just the logical solution. The EU is large enough to simulate any climate or locale in America and all the entitlement goodies taxocrats use to buy voters here already exist: "free" health care, college, child care, etc...

There is no such place for right-wingers to move, where liberty and risk are more prominent than Statism. The United States was the last place on earth where government knew its proper role, with laws to keep its powers in check. That is no longer the case.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

>> ^quantumushroom:

You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons.

That's probably the most ironic thing I think I've ever read.

Proof that American voters are Morons

Is this news? The rest of the world knew this awhile ago.

Ironic? No. Iconic? Ha ha ha.

Didn't the American left learn anything from the soviet experiment? Russia was/is a country with vast natural resources--far more than the USA has--and under communism they had to import grain. Putting aside the gulags, planned famines and secret police for a moment, the centralized soviet government controlled EVERYTHING. It's fair to say the men and women running the soviet empire weren't fools...they tried their best because failure meant death.

The soviet empire deservedly collapsed because it failed to recognize the dignity of the individual, and individual freedom.

Are American Progressives all communists? Of course not. Are they in tune with the consequences resulting from what they support? No, or they wouldn't be Progressives.

Either you believe in utopia or you understand there are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons.
That's probably the most ironic thing I think I've ever read.

Hi quantum! Long time no see! How's that right-wing going for ya?

Communism eh? What about fascism? Huh? What? Yeah, that's right, I can deal in hyperbole too! So there!

Or are you going to go on a tangent about how the fascists were actually left-wing?>> ^quantumushroom:

Ironic? No. Iconic? Ha ha ha.
Didn't the American left learn anything from the soviet experiment? Russia was/is a country with vast natural resources--far more than the USA has--and under communism they had to import grain. Putting aside the gulags, planned famines and secret police for a moment, the centralized soviet government controlled EVERYTHING. It's fair to say the men and women running the soviet empire weren't fools...they tried their best because failure meant death.
The soviet empire deservedly collapsed because it failed to recognize the dignity of the individual, and individual freedom.
Are American Progressives all communists? Of course not. Are they in tune with the consequences resulting from what they support? No, or they wouldn't be Progressives.
Either you believe in utopia or you understand there are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons.
That's probably the most ironic thing I think I've ever read.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ironic? No. Iconic? Ha ha ha.
Didn't the American left learn anything from the soviet experiment?>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons.
That's probably the most ironic thing I think I've ever read.



You're not going to win converts by calling people communists.

I think perhaps you missed what was ironic about your comment. As far as I see it, the only reason you come here is to tell people they're idiots for not being conservatives.

Granted, a lot of times you don't actually call people morons, just socialists, fascists, communists, marxists, bolsheviks, etc.

The thing is, I've just flat out never seen you try to treat anyone to your left with an ounce of respect. You don't have any when it comes to nationally known politicians and opinion makers, nor do you have any when it comes to the people here on Videosift.

When you start the conversation with the kinds of hostility you often level at people here, they don't listen, they just shut down and get defensive.

This post wasn't meant to convince anyone of anything, just more of an outburst of exasperation and frustration, which is always a little more satisfying when done within earshot of other people.

Hi quantum! Long time no see! How's that right-wing going for ya?

We'll find out after November 2nd.

Meanwhile I see the left is working its usual magic: bestowing more rights to illegals than American citizens, record-breaking out-of-control spending, raising taxes, crying racism, stifling business, passing more tyrannical leviathan legislation, keeping poor kids trapped in failing schools, paying off unions, all with the aid of the State-Run media (except those meanies at FOX) who during election '08 gave up all pretense of journalistic objectivity. Kudos to Barry for making us look weak in the eyes of the world's dictators and keeping unemployment in the double digits. OH BUT WAIT IT'S ALL BUSH FAULT. O-MAN INHERITED THIS MESS!


Communism eh? What about fascism? Huh? What? Yeah, that's right, I can deal in hyperbole too! So there!

Or are you going to go on a tangent about how the fascists were actually left-wing?

The soviets proved communism is the same as fascism. Today the battle is between Statism and Liberty.

You're not going to win converts by calling people communists.

Perhaps not, but I call it like I see it. There's no sense tip-toeing around peeps out to radically change America into fading europe via saul alinsky tactics.

I think perhaps you missed what was ironic about your comment. As far as I see it, the only reason you come here is to tell people they're idiots for not being conservatives.

What about cat videos? I rather believe I'm pointing out the follies of the left rather than singling out any particular sifter. Really dudes, do you think *I* am such a threat? The primary sifter demographic is left-wing militant atheists between ages 18 and 28. I harbor no illusions about the sift.

Granted, a lot of times you don't actually call people morons, just socialists, fascists, communists, marxists, bolsheviks, etc.

Well, writing 'Statist' all the time gets old, but that's really what we're talking about when we say "Progressive", isn't it? One who believes in social engineering via the State, at the low, low cost of individual liberty.

The thing is, I've just flat out never seen you try to treat anyone to your left with an ounce of respect.

I've had some fair discussions now and again with left-leaning sifters. The door is always open if peeps want to continue the discussion, but it's always going to be the same go-around. But it's OK to agree to disagree.

You don't have any when it comes to nationally known politicians and opinion makers, nor do you have any when it comes to the people here on Videosift.

Any popular politician or opinionist knows they're not going to be loved by everyone, nor do the smart ones much care. If you think I'm being too hard on maddow, stewart, franken, et al then take solace I find similar "arguments" against Limbaugh (drug addict!) or Palin (retarded) quite lame.

I'm sorry your personal experience wasn't up to snuff. Without looking at any past posts, I recall you as being somewhat hostile as well.

When you start the conversation with the kinds of hostility you often level at people here, they don't listen, they just shut down and get defensive.

I can't help it if they take things personally, and may I add this "charge" seems rather suspicious. Usually the "target" is in the video itself (olberman, maddow, maher, etc.) NOT other sifters.

This post wasn't meant to convince anyone of anything, just more of an outburst of exasperation and frustration, which is always a little more satisfying when done within earshot of other people.

Well, even in this thread I think I've made some good points (see Morgenthau above) and I'm not really around much these days. You've got a freakin' CROWN next to your handle and plenty of homies.

These are, unfortunately, interesting times. America remains a right-of-center nation with a 90% religious population. "Atheisift" (or "liberalsift") should welcome a little controversy.

If this will make you feel better:

A;;L ARE WRONG BUT THE RIGHWING! JE$U$ IS AMERICAN REPUBLICAN. WORSHP JE$U$!

If only there were a significant party on the side of Liberty, maybe we could make some progress, but first I guess we need a significant slice of the population to be interested in Liberty.

The American people do not want Liberty. Not the Democrats, the Republicans, the left, the right, the conservatives, the progressives or any other label you can come up with. Our aversion to Liberty is only to be outdone by the commercial sector and corporate interests.

American Government, state or federal, regardless who has been in control, has been aggressively increasing its size and power particularly in the last 30 years. The War on Drugs and general drug law, DMCA, PATRIOT Act, anything to do with Dept of Homeland Security, War on Terror, Free Speech Zones, Same-sex Marriage bans, AZ's Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent immigration law, ban on Gays in the Military, Communications Decency Act, sodomy laws, prostitution laws... and I could go on but I want to go to bed soon.

By and large we're happy to surrender our liberties so that the government can "protect" us from terrorists, gays, Mexicans, Muslims, drugs, and any and all forms of responsibility.

Anyone who thinks it's only the "other party" that's the problem is lying to themselves or terribly uninformed.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Today the battle is between Statism and Liberty.