tytlyf
Not Religious
That's opinion and fake news. It means nothing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Will Trump Destroy the Republican Party?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I'm not so sure of that. I've often thought it could go the other way, at least if the Republicans could jettison the nationalist/racist elements and tone down some of the more odious and hawkish elements among their ranks. If they could bring in the more religious, socially conservative blacks and Hispanics into the Republican fold, they could take away two key voting blocs which have traditionally voted Democratic.
Don't be so quick to dismiss me as a Fox News dupe.
As I see it, you bought into the left wing spin of Obama's seemingly clumsy speech.
I've analyzed it in detail before, & reached a conclusion different from both the right and the left
wing media. I've heard it, & read the transcript of the speech multiple times. Have you?
Of course he addresses infrastructure. But to reach your conclusion that it was solely about its usefulness to business, one would have to completely ignore a couple clear statements which Obama deliberately constructed when preparing his speech well in advance.
Ref (full speech).....
You didn't build that - Wikipedia
An excerpt....
"If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Does "that" refer to business or to infrastructure.
Grammar points to business. Is this error or art?
I wonder.....
Is Obama an incredibly sloppy writer/speaker, accidentally saying what he doesn't mean....
or is he incredibly sophisticated, saying what he knows to be misleading/manipulative so
he can fire up envy & resentment towards those undeserving wealthy business owners?
No one denies the usefulness of infrastructure to all, including business. Business owners
know this....after all, we're the ones who pay the lion's share of supporting taxes.
(My property taxes are far higher per valuation than homeowners'. Corporations pay income
taxes, & then what's left over becomes dividends, which are then taxed once again.)
It's a non-controversy....a non-issue he introduces.
So why bring it up as though anyone disagrees?
Now consider.....
"....people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
He implies that people who aren't successful in business are just as smart & hard working as Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Craig Venter, Dean Kamen, Mr Black & Mr Decker, etc, etc.
What does his speech do?
The upshot is to minimize the value of those who create businesss. They're no smarter or
harder working than anyone else....so they're not so deserving of their success. They use
infrastructure provided by others....so they're not so deserving of their success. If they're
successful, it's because someone helped them....so they're not so deserving of their success.
The unworthy must be taxed more!
Demagoguery.
I can say that Obama is very good at firing up people who dislike business, his poor speaking ability notwithstanding.
Last edited:
Underhill
Well-Known Member
On specific issues, sure. But in many cases it's because those views have become almost religious in their staunch attitudes. All gun regulation is evil. Abortion is always murder. These ideas leave no room for compromise.
The same may exist on the left, but I don't think it is as common. Most liberals tend to be more flexible in their thinking.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Yeah, but that would embolden those that despise social conservatism. In the last election, Hillary didn't do a good job of motivating them. There are more and more of them every day. So, if a Democrat can mobilize them, it would help their cause quite a bit.
And more self-congratulatory.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Right. So name an issue where liberals are as hard core in their position as the pro life or pro gun crowd? (I believe these two issues are much of the reason why Trump could club a homeless guy on live TV and still get votes over a liberal.)
Global warming? Views are all over the place and people are generally open to compromise. Gun control? Most liberals who want it are looking for more regulation of some kind and are extremely flexible (most would be happy if anything were to happen). Abortion? Most liberals are for abortion, but they aren't exactly fans of it's use. They don't want the control taken out of women's hands but they would be open to some regulation (as in Roe v Wade) as long as the goal isn't to simply eliminate access.
Go down the list of positions and virtually all of them they are willing to compromise to some degree.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Good point. I agree completely. Sure, there are obviously exceptions, but, generally, you are spot on.
When it comes to gun control, I don't want the 2nd Amendment erased. But, responsible regulation is absolutely necessary. Mental health has to be a limiting factor too.
When it comes to abortion, I am not a "fan" per se. I wouldn't go as far as saying that abortion is moral. But, it is most definitely a women's issue. And, it is unacceptable that people want to eliminate access. Legally, bodily autonomy is something that has to be protected and respected. No one should be forced to give up the use of their body against their will.
When it comes to global warming, it is a give and take situation. It is absolutely something that has to be addressed, but it shouldn't be debilitating to business. It has to be measured and fair. But, again, it cannot be ignored or classified as "fake" or some conspiracy.
As I see it....
There are 2 different kinds of "liberal".
We have the politically liberal (N Americastanian type),
& there is the liberal personality, ie, permissive, tolerant, dynamic.
The latter is flexible, while the former can be very set in their ways....one could say "conservative".
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Set in there ways is not the same thing though.
Let me put it another way. The two largest demographics (my opinion) in the Republican party, by the numbers, is the pro gun crowd and the religious right (essentially the pro life crowd). These tend to be among the most dogmatic in their beliefs about those issues. This is why Trump can get away with almost anything so long as he supports gun rights at all cost and promotes pro-life judges.
The left tends to be much less dogmatic. It's good and bad. Good when it comes to compromise, bad when it comes to building a cohesive consensus on an issue. This is one of the reasons the affordable care act was such a compromise bill that nobody really liked.
First-past-the-post voting systems severely disadvantage third parties unless they're very regionally-focused.
If a third party gets a significant amount of House or Senate seats, it'll be a "Texas Independence Party" or the like... something that focuses all of its efforts in a small area and runs no candidates in the parts of the country where it can't win.
I see dogmatic thought on both sides.
(Try getting lefties to understand anyone else's perspective here. It's hard work.)
Who is worse?
I dunno.....but I'll wager you don't either.
When I think of emerging issues, even progressive ones like drug legalization & gay marriage,
Democrats have been in opposition when some Republicans have been in favor. So even if
a difference is discernible, there's too much variation to put groups of people in neat little boxes.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Almost reads 100% the way I interpreted too, so, it's not just you. Such sentiments can hardly be described as "centrist".
Local victories are the only ones we (Libertarians) have won.
Gary Johnson got 3% of the popular vote, & 0% of the elector's votes.
I've a neologism for Obma's style of seemingly clumsy demagoguery.....
"Obambastic"
Are you a right wing dupe too?
Tis a wonder that staff even allow us deluded dullards to post or spammie spin here.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Indeed and I, too, do not watch Faux Nudes...
And 0% of the representation in the final outcome.
But assuming that it takes ~200,000 votes to wim a congressional district (wild guess estimate based on a quick scan of how many votes the winning candidates got in Michigan), those ~4,489,000 Libertarian voters could have elected about 22 congressional seats if they lived in a concentrated area; 5% of the total number of seats.
... but Libertarians - and their party's efforts - are diluted over the whole country, so they get no federal representation at all. Even if the Libertarian party doubled in popularity, this would still be the result.
Meanwhile, if a party centred on some local issue manages to get only a few hundred thousand supporters in a small area, they could take 1 or 2 seats... i.e. 1 or 2 seats more than the Libertarians despite having a fraction of the support.
This is why the first-past-the-post system is fundamentay messed up. 3% support for the Libertarians (or whoever) should translate into 3% of the representation going to the Libertarians. In a 435-seat Congress, that's about 13 seats.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I posted this in another thread, but it also got me thinking about your question.
Just a disclaimer this does not provide evidence to answer your question since your question was not the target of the study; however, we can use it in an informal way to make opinion based assumptions.
The Divisions in the House Republican Party
Due to the nature of the Rejectionists electing Hillary could have divided the Republicans more so than Trump. However, if Trump is their last hope at solidarity that could still easily lead to further division in the Republican party. In my opinion I think the Republicans need to purge themselves of these Rejectionists.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Seriously? Did you read your own Wikipedia excerpt? You extracted that out of context and then spun it as ambiguous. Just read the entire paragraph:
Obama did make lots of rhetorical blunders, although he was generally a great speaker and thinker. In this case, his meaning was crystal clear, but, like Al Gore's "invented the internet" speech, his political enemies turned it into something entirely different for propaganda purposes. It worked, but that doesn't mean that we need to perpetuate the myth. Obama was pointing out something that I think you disagree with for ideological reasons--that the government is needed as an enabler and and regulator of markets. You would prefer to minimize the role of government, and he was saying that it had a central role to play.
He brought it up because there is a systematic attack on the role of government in business investment and development, despite the fact that the government represents roughly a third of the GDP and the economy would collapse without its support for the business infrastructure. We see that now in the Republican Congress and the Republican administration, which have done nothing to implement the infrastructure development that Trump promised during his campaign. Instead, there is a lot of talk about pumping up our already-bloated military and lowering taxes, which promises to blow the deficit and public debt sky high. The problem I had with Obama is that he gave good speeches like this one, but he wasn't very good at countering the quote-mining machinery of the Republican Party. Your interpretation had no traction outside of Republican circles.
That is actually true, but that wasn't the point of his remark. It was that there are a lot of smart, hardworking people that work for the CEOs of companies, and that it is beyond ridiculous to forget who does all of the hard work in designing and building the things that a company produces. It isn't all about managers. Without good workers, they don't make their fortunes. Have you ever worked in a large corporation? A lot of stuff gets done when management is ordering pizzas and donuts and rolling up their sleeves to attend a PowerPoint presentation that they often don't understand.
There is demagoguery on both sides of the political divide, and everyone hates taxes, but we often mistake messages we don't want to hear as demagoguery. Obama never said anything to minimize the value of those who created and managed businesses. You seem to see praise for anyone other than wealthy businessmen as an insult to business. What Obama was very clearly saying was that it takes a lot more than genius business executives to make a business successful. We forget that fact at our own risk.
Sorry, but that is pure contradictory nonsense. He did not call people names and attack groups in anything like what we see coming out of Trump's administration these days. You have some nerve to call Obama a demagogue in light of what Trump is doing to the country and his party. He was attacking an attitude that needed attacking. Business success does not depend just on the brilliance and hard work of the person who runs a business. Labor is important, and so is the government that enables the business to thrive.
Of course I extracted portions (not just that one) to illustrate what Obama was up to.
And I dealt with the context of that which I extracted.
(I'll wager I'm more familiar with the speech than art thou. So don't get all high & mighty with me, bub)
Great speaker?
Great thinker?
This is one of those agreeing to disagree moments.
The choir is happy with his preaching, but they're an easy audience.
To the non-believers, his silver tongue is tarnished.
Nice voice though.
You keep bringing up his enemies & their propaganda.
I'm giving you my interpretation of the speech, not defending theirs.
Again, this is a false controversy.
To oppose big government is different from opposing infrastructure.
There's pretty widespread support for useful infrastructure, including
from business, conservatives, liberals, & even libertarians.
But Obama needs a boogeyman to sell to the base.....convince them that
businesses don't understand their own needs, don't deserve what they have,
& must pay more.
You keep trying in vain to make this about Republicans, & to rope me in with them.
I'm not one. I do my own analysis.
I urge you to try to understand my perspective....& not perfunctorily force me into this narrow & false partisan spectrum.
Of course we who own businesses have others work for us.
We pay them for what they do.
But they don't start companies, & shouldn't expect that without initiative,
risk taking, & investment they'll reap the same level of reward.
Obama wants to put them in the same league with the movers & shakers....
make them feel like they're owed more from the undeserving bosses.
This is utter demagoguery.
Btw, I've worked for many large corporations, either as an employee or contractor.
You believe that the managers don't understand what goes on, but I saw things differently at
GM Truck & Bus, Northrop Aircraft, Koppers Co, & many others. No one's perfect, but
I worked for many capable managers....who were better at their jobs than I'd have been.
From what you just posted, you don't know what it's like to create or run a business.
We put in far longer hours than the employees. We risk everything doing what they don't or can't.
Since you are one of those who endure his demagoguery, you certainly wouldn't notice it as would I.
Obama's praise is so general that it applies to all, including those who do nothing extraordinary.
You're wrong.
Praise is due when an individual excels.
It might be one in business, one in government, or one in a skilled trade.
But I do not accept this Obama notion of entitlement which smells like
every-child-who-participates-gets-a-trophy.....& in this case, a cash prize.
He attacked in his own style of demagoguery.
Without using names, we know of whom he speaks with such disdain.....
"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I have a whole lotta nerve.
Nerve is good.
Obama's demagoguery cannot be washed away with the cry, "Trump is worse!".
You made my point for me with the underlined word.
He attacks for political gain. He creates enemies for rallying the faithful.
That labor is important is an undisputed issue....one he turns into a faux controversy.
A conducive business environment provided by government is an undisputed issue....another faux controversy.
Again.....this is demagoguery, all built on straw.
Parenthetical aside....
I find demagoguery widespread, infecting all parties.
It will vary with individuals....extent, style, target, audience.
But it's there nonetheless.
Those who cannot see it on their own side are doomed to support it.
(Libertarians like to attack government. I see it.)
Last edited: