Poll Suggests Republicans are Becoming a Fundie Religious Movement

[Agamemnon]

I suppose you're right, in the sense that anyone involved in politics is just another bunch of politicians. 

They are politicians in the sense that they can't be trusted any more than the current batch. Sorry, I have an extremely low opinion of politicians and political parties, regardless of what they claim. And from what I can tell the LP is just a bunch of disaffected Republicans.

Here's one for you: What DON'T you like about the LP?

[subtleinspiration]

Here's one for you: What DON'T you like about the LP?

That they run all the wierdos for public office.

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

^^LOL, that's all I got.

[screwtape]

Even Captain America knows the teabaggers are whackaloons.

[subtleinspiration]

^ I guess Chris Matthews is in good company since Captain America is a racist too!

[Count Iblis]

^ It's too bad that some of the populist anger that the Tea Parties are exploiting wasn't channeled into the Libertarian movement. Instead, the Tea Parties seem to have sucked all the air out of the room for Libertarians and left them just as marginalized as before. The teabaggers might pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and small government, but they've larded the message with all sorts of other baggage - the religious crap, conspiracy theories, racism and xenophobia, right-wing social policies, etc... Their heroes are people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann, instead of Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Penn Jillette.

Even though Bob Barr now claims to be a Libertarian, I don't trust him at all. He voted for the Patriot Act and only after voters realized how bad the thing is did he start to oppose it. In the past he's been a major supporter of the War on (Some) Drugs and an opponent to decriminalizing medical marijuana, now he claims to support medical marijuana. He opposed same sex marriage (he wrote the Defense of Marriage Act) and now claims to support it. He supported the war in Iraq and now opposes it. While in Congress he tried to get the military to ban the practice of Wicca. He's also been a long time opponent of abortion.

[xphobe]

^ I agree.  People can change, but this seemed too much like opportunism since he was shut out of the two major parties.

I agree with SI: why do they always run weirdos?  I had high hopes for Debra Medina (though she's officially a Republican) until her "911-truther" meltdown on Glen Beck.

[screwtape]

^ I guess Chris Matthews is in good company since Captain America is a racist too!

I have no idea what you are talking about. In what way do you think either are racists?

[Agamemnon]

^ I agree.  People can change, but this seemed too much like opportunism since he was shut out of the two major parties.

I agree with SI: why do they always run weirdos?  I had high hopes for Debra Medina (though she's officially a Republican) until her "911-truther" meltdown on Glen Beck.

So, aside from running weirdos, the LP is a model of perfection? lol Ok, I'm convinced. Where do I sign up?

[subtleinspiration]

^^ Christ Matthews on President Obama and his State of the Union address:

I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

And I think the writer's inherit racism, coming out of the mouth of Captain America from that link you presented, speaks for itself.

[screwtape]

I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

Ah.  I did read about it but I forgot about that one. 

[screwtape]

It's funny.  I did a google image search for "tea party". The first page of images were all something like this:

Very appropos, in my opinion.

Searching for "tea bagger" images was less safe for work, to say the least.

[subtleinspiration]

^ Yeah, I find it amusing for the people who don't know what the term means and call themselves that with pride and not a trace of irony.

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

^^^Perhaps both definitions apply.

[xphobe]

So, aside from running weirdos, the LP is a model of perfection? lol Ok, I'm convinced. Where do I sign up?

Actually Debra Medina is running on the Republican ticket against two other batsh*t crazy Republicans. But she's generally considered to have libertarian views.

But yes, you're on the right track.  Every group has weirdos.  Look at the atheists on this forum - we've got our share.  To make the LP what you want it to be, and to have sensible people run for office, you have to vote.  Or better yet, join the LP yourself and run for office.

[subtleinspiration]

My point is that while the LP Party has great ideals, they can't get it together with a dynamic candidate who can speak openly and plainly without indulging their off-normal viewpoints.

[DVZ3]

As much as I'm in a favor for a 3rd party, I have to ask whether or not it makes sense.  Not in the sense that everyone here is currently discussing, but statistical, political sense.  I personally believe that a 3rd party doesn't have a chance of winning an election against the reps. and & Dem's just because it's engraved in most Americans to vote for just the two.  What it will do however, is pull votes away from another person who may have gotten elected otherwise, good or bad.  It is because of this scenario that I think it is detrimental to the system.  American mindset doesn't change overnight in the least and therein lies the problem. Unless I'm ignorant and missing something?

I do however, TOTALLY agree that what would be better for America and the American people, would be to lessen the reelection BS.  Whoever stated that flat 6 year term is genius, and I'm sure it's been mentioned before but I really never gave it much thought.  How do we rational thinking people start this "Flat Term" movement!!!?  I'm IN!

[Kais]

As much as I'm in a favor for a 3rd party, I have to ask whether or not it makes sense.  Not in the sense that everyone here is currently discussing, but statistical, political sense.  I personally believe that a 3rd party doesn't have a chance of winning an election against the reps. and & Dem's just because it's engraved in most Americans to vote for just the two.  What it will do however, is pull votes away from another person who may have gotten elected otherwise, good or bad.  It is because of this scenario that I think it is detrimental to the system.  American mindset doesn't change overnight in the least and therein lies the problem. Unless I'm ignorant and missing something?

I do however, TOTALLY agree that what would be better for America and the American people, would be to lessen the reelection BS.  Whoever stated that flat 6 year term is genius, and I'm sure it's been mentioned before but I really never gave it much thought.  How do we rational thinking people start this "Flat Term" movement!!!?  I'm IN!

Can someone please explain to me how Congress and Senate are elected in the US?

[xphobe]

As much as I'm in a favor for a 3rd party, I have to ask whether or not it makes sense.  Not in the sense that everyone here is currently discussing, but statistical, political sense.  I personally believe that a 3rd party doesn't have a chance of winning an election against the reps. and & Dem's just because it's engraved in most Americans to vote for just the two.  What it will do however, is pull votes away from another person who may have gotten elected otherwise, good or bad.  It is because of this scenario that I think it is detrimental to the system.  American mindset doesn't change overnight in the least and therein lies the problem. Unless I'm ignorant and missing something?

The American voting system leaves much to be desired, and a discussion of its methodology, faults and alternatives would be lengthy, outside the scope of this thread, and only marginally interesting to members from other countries.

But if you are a condemned prisoner, and you have a 50% chance of being executed by the electric chair, a 45% chance of lethal injection, and only a 5% chance of escaping, do you vote for the electric chair because it's the most likely outcome?  Or do you vote for lethal injection because it's a tad more in line with your idea of a humane death?

I don't view voting as some kind of competition or test where I have to strategize around what I think might be the most popular answer.  I don't care who everyone else votes for.  I vote for the candidate I feel best meets my criteria.  Sometimes I choose not to vote for anyone, and if that's not done out of ignorance but in a fully informed way it can be a valid choice.  Regardless, I can't be held responsible for poor decisions other people make.

[Agamemnon]

So, aside from running weirdos, the LP is a model of perfection? lol Ok, I'm convinced. Where do I sign up?

But yes, you're on the right track.  Every group has weirdos.  Look at the atheists on this forum - we've got our share.  To make the LP what you want it to be, and to have sensible people run for office, you have to vote.  Or better yet, join the LP yourself and run for office.

Actually the track that I was on was to see if you can show that you or the other LP supporters here have critically examined your party and can find some faults. At this point, I don't think so, if all you can come up with is to say that you run weirdos for office. No single party supports all my views perfectly.

There are some things I like about the LP and some things I don't and a few of the things in the "don't like" category are show stoppers for me.

[xphobe]

There are some things I like about the LP and some things I don't and a few of the things in the "don't like" category are show stoppers for me.

Such as?

"Smaller Government.  Lower Taxes.  More Freedom."

What's not to like?

http://www.lp.org/platform

[Agamemnon]

What's not to like?

We'll be getting pretty far off topic debating the pros and cons of the LP.

[DVZ3]

But if you are a condemned prisoner, and you have a 50% chance of being executed by the electric chair, a 45% chance of lethal injection, and only a 5% chance of escaping, do you vote for the electric chair because it's the most likely outcome?  Or do you vote for lethal injection because it's a tad more in line with your idea of a humane death?

This is point... it doesn't matter the circumstances surrounding the vote if it doesn't matter.  The 5% isn't doing anything, when the majority still just see A and B, and disregard C.  I'm not saying it's right for the long term goals.  But it's an impossibility in the short term and 'could' cause a canidate to loose who should have probably won.

Your scenario is much like the choice between 2 evils.  And that's why many people don't even vote at all.  Because they wouldn't vote for either A or B.  They want C but C will never win any time soon...

I never said it wasn't depressing.

P.S. I would vote for the lethal injection myself... wouldn't you?  It's a much more 'peaceful' way to go.  Especially if there were no escape!

[xphobe]

P.S. I would vote for the lethal injection myself... wouldn't you?  It's a much more 'peaceful' way to go.  Especially if there were no escape!

Ah but in my scenario there is a possibility of escape.  Hell no I wouldn't vote for lethal injection, as long as there is a chance of escape.   

And I wouldn't vote for a Nazi if there was any other candidate running... or even if there was no other candidate running.  Wrong is wrong.

[DVZ3]

And I wouldn't vote for a Nazi if there was any other candidate running... or even if there was no other candidate running.  Wrong is wrong.

Your really going to the extreme in both scenarios to prove a point. But that's just it, in real life there is no escape from either party.  Even if their both Nazi's.

But you do prove 1 BIG scenario, maybe more of us need to start planning the escape rather than not voting at all.

[xphobe]

^ and in that case I won't vote for either one.

Good thing there are occasionally non-nutty third-party candidates that I can consider.  But when there aren't, I won't vote.

[DVZ3]

Good thing there are occasionally non-nutty third-party candidates that I can consider.  But when there aren't, I won't vote.

I guess I really can't say I disagree with this point.  But don't you truely believe in the lesser of the two evils as many people put it?  I realize your previous analogies, but lets be real, someone from the only 2 parties will inevitably be voted in.  And why would you potentially just let the 'most' evil one be voted in knowing how the system works?

I guess this is where my athesist thinking comes into play.  I want to believe if I vote for the better 3rd party canidate that I am doing America and myself a favor.  But the rational reality is I just possibly hurt the realistic election of the lesser evil.

[xphobe]

Agamemnon is right.  We're getting off-topic.

Re the OP, I think "becoming" is a weak word.  The GOP has been a fundie religious movement since at least 1980 when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority helped Reagan get elected.  It's only half a joke that GOP stands for God's Own Party.

In the fundie religious sense, the Democratic party is the lesser of two evils.  But in other ways they are the greater of two evils, which are also "show stoppers" for me.  When you vote, you take into consideration all the evils.  If I can't find a party without show-stoppers, I won't vote.

[SherB]

Here is one of the best articles I've read about the fundamentalist christian/republican/tea party coalition---or conspiracy, whatever you want to call it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/23/republicans-religion-secular-america It's written by a UK newspaper, and when these people get into power, which may very well happen in 2010 if the rest of us don't start speaking up, the only place we'll be able to get real news will be from the BBC, etc. Until, of course, they find a way to block their internet sites. Or hell, just declare computers tools of the debel and sent the jack-booted thugs to your and my houses to take them away...

Speaking of conspiracies, and I have to admit I am a little bit of a conspiracy theorist, I've had a persistent thought that I wonder if anybody else has thought of. Maybe I'm crazy---OK, yes I really am crazy, but this is a serious though. You notice how many senators and congressmen are quitting right now? Pretty much every one has used the old 'spending more time with my family' excuse, which usually means someone's been sacked, but I don't think that's what's at work here. They've all been democrats who were seen to be some of the few that could dependably hold on to their seat in congress no matter what the fundies threw at them.

People in the government almost never quit, as long as they still think they can get elected. It's just too cushy a deal. This is more than one or two people, I think the latest count is at least 4 and still climbing. So why? And why only democrats who could be expected to beat any republicans who ran against them? No Republicans are quitting, no dems who are probably going to lose this upcoming election, only ones who could stand in the way of the fundies getting into power. So my question is, is there something behind these democrats quitting that we're not seeing?

I'm assuming for this post that republicans/teabaggers/fundamentalist christians are terms that can be used interchangeably, and that the eventual goal is for the repubs to get in power and bring in this theocracy. And if anyone is taking bets, I'll give you any kind of odds that if they get the power, this country will become a theocracy with fundamentalist christian rules and dogma determining all the laws.

Here are some of the ways I see it could be done really easily. If these people are churchers themselves, maybe their preacher or priest could take them aside and tell them that their eternal soul was in danger if they didn't get out of the way. Another would be that someone could have dirt on them. I'm sure there are people in the government that have dirt of some kind on everyone in power. Just because J. Edgar's not around any moe doesn't mean than his methods aren't still useful.

But the one I think is most plausible is simple extortion. Some kind of real threat to them or their family. With all the religious whack jobs out there, it wouldn't take much to pay a senator a little midnight visit with some photos of their kid in college and how bad it would be if they got killed in a hit and run, etc. I know that sounds like a TV plot, but where do TV plots come from? Usually the concept has existed in the real world. And with this country poised to become a theocracy the minute the republicans are in power, people could be convinced to do things in the name of religion that they wouldn't do just for politics. Any input? Please tell me I'm seeing things that don't exist---you may hurt my feelings but I think I'd feel better about our future. Thanks for reading...   ---SherB