Extremism In America

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 41 - 60 of total 62 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Feb 9, 2016 - 10:32am PT
Obama had tons of support outside his own party. Maybe you're thinking of Bush?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 9, 2016 - 10:36am PT
No. Both Presidents Bush, but particularly W. had significant support outside their party, and specifically with centrist Democrats. It was only after Dean, Reid and Pelosi took over the Democrats' leadership that the extreme partisanship emerged.

I find it ironic that one of the few areas where Obama has worked with Republicans - the TPP - has now become toxic to the extremes of both parties. I continue to maintain that foreign trade remains the area of economics least understood by the electorate.

John
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Feb 9, 2016 - 10:39am PT
I mostly agree John. But it's the same pressures in our evolving society that are affecting humans on the right and left (eg social media, 24 hour news cycle, etc.). I think as those pressures cause changes in how one extreme operates, that will trigger changes in how the other extreme operates.

As for the center being disenfranchised - I don't really buy it - we have the same rights and powers that we've always had, nothing has been taken away from us, we've just become less effective at influencing the extremes. It's not like our perspective has the right to be more influential, and that's been taken away from us ...
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 9, 2016 - 10:50am PT
rbord, I agree about disenfranchisement at the national and statewide level, but gerrymandering has produced districts in California that are more likely to produce extreme outcomes. A liberal or even a moderate Democrat in my state legislative districts has no realistic ability to affect who the Republicans nominate. The registration in my districts, per the gerrymander, is overwhelmingly Republican, so the nominee almost always wins the election. When the extremes dominate the party, the extreme candidate most likely wins the election.

We tried to end this by taking selection out of the hands of the Legislature, but the commission didn't see maximizing the number of "contestable" districts as being particularly important. WIthout gerrymandering, extremes would have a harder time controlling the government. With it, we can end up with a government, such as that in California, more extreme than the electorate as a whole.

John
c wilmot

climber
Feb 9, 2016 - 10:54am PT
Just go to the middle east and find out for yourself who is the real threat
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Feb 9, 2016 - 11:01am PT
Extremists? How about just plain ol' generic crankloons?

More Americans quitting jobs as labor market strengthens
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-economy-idUSL2N15O17X
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Feb 9, 2016 - 11:03am PT
John posted
It was only after Dean, Reid and Pelosi took over the Democrats' leadership that the extreme partisanship emerged.

John you have an impressively selective political memory when you choose to. The years you cite were all times when there were considerable numbers of blue dog democrats and even still some moderate republicans. Democrats swung hard to the right on many issues after 9/11 out of fear of losing those elections (and then lost them anyway as Republicans gerrymandered more conservative districts). Bush and company frequently put provisions into bills specifically to make democrats oppose them such as when they added the provision to strip labor protections from employees of the Department of Homeland Security. The democrats who conceived of the idea and authored the bill wound up voting against it as a result. This kind of thing happened over and over again and huge numbers of laws were passed under Bush with almost no democratic support. If we went back and took out those blue dogs, I'm willing to bet it would be strict party line a lot of the time. Trying to lay hyper-partisanship at the feet of Pelosi and Reid just because you started noticing it once you stopped agreeing with the legislation is more than a little disingenuous.

*edit* Also, arguing that the bipartisanship was due to the strength of congressional/presidential leadership instead of the willingness of dems to cooperate (and fear of the repercussions if they didn't) is a neat trick.
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Feb 9, 2016 - 12:30pm PT
It was only after Dean, Reid and Pelosi took over the Democrats' leadership that the extreme partisanship emerged.

That jumped out at me as odd too....

My first reaction is that governments will naturally tend toward extreme partisanship over time; even in multi-party systems, they must coalesce parties into voting blocks to get what they want... and often the decisions come down to yes/no, leaving only 2 choices. If people on each side feel strongly, they will dig in, and use whatever tools they have to increase their power. This means that we lose the ability to make per-issue decisions, and get stuck stuck with two factions that have pre-defined positions on all issues.

This evolution was accelerated in USA by the Contract with America in the 1994 campaign. It was very effective and gave more power to the Republicans when they used the single-block agenda with party members towing the line. That rewrote the rules, and basic game theory says that both sides have to do it now or they'll be crushed by the other side.

But to be fair, academic analyses of partisanship have shown an exponential rise over the last 60 years:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507#sec008



Hmmm... lower left graph does show a serious drop-off in collaboration in 2000-2004 timeframe. Whether that is caused by policies of new Democratic leadership, or retirement of the old stalwarts who worked through the partisanship, or turn-over of seats to more fiery newcomers, changing policies and management within both parties, or something else, is a different question. I'm leaving it there for now, work break done for me.
Sierra Ledge Rat

Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
Feb 9, 2016 - 12:42pm PT
I have been saying for years that Republicans are a greater threat to America, liberty and Democracy than any of our other enemies.
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Feb 9, 2016 - 01:08pm PT
than any of our other enemies.
including but not limited to Democrats.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Feb 9, 2016 - 01:15pm PT
Yea I see what you mean. I guess for my part, that we humans are gravitating to extremes given current conditions like social media is just a natural part of who we are. That's not to say that we can't make it worse by gerrymandering legislative districts, or make it better by purposefully and consciously reaching across the aisle to embrace a perspective different than our own. But whether we see moving in a centrist direction or moving in an extremist direction as good or bad is something that we each decide for ourselves differently. And mostly I think we don't do it by consciously analyzing facts, but more by unconsciously responding to the pressures and constraints of our (informational) environment.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Feb 9, 2016 - 01:19pm PT
Well, Nut, we won't address the methodology, or lack thereof, but even
taking those graphs at face value it is pretty academic and, in the end,
it takes two to tango, or knott. ;-)
survival

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2016 - 01:22pm PT
Funny how one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.






Freedom Fighter.
Norton

Social climber
Feb 9, 2016 - 01:43pm PT
Nutsagain said

Hmmm... lower left graph does show a serious drop-off in collaboration in 2000-2004 timeframe. Whether that is caused by policies of new Democratic leadership,

I assume you are talking about the national level

if so, from 2000-2006 this nation was "governed" by a Republican President,
Republican Senate and Republican House

could that reason possibly, maybe have something to do with the drop off in collaboration or is that merely coincidence?
c wilmot

climber
Feb 9, 2016 - 01:48pm PT
I find it funny the left has conditioned its followers to think that white men in the US are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists.
I suppose you just cant make this stuff up....
c wilmot

climber
Feb 9, 2016 - 01:55pm PT
be afraid of cliven bundy...he might want to illegally let his cattle on your land...

be welcoming of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi..he only wants to rape your daughters and slice your throat....

remember- its cliven you need to worry about ....
survival

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2016 - 02:40pm PT
wilmot, you need to read the article too.
It's not Cliven, it's the whole array of Nazi, White Supremacist, Anti-Federalist, Militia, End Times groups.

Again, I didn't make it up. This was reported from 382 law enforcement groups. We do believe in laws and enforcing them don't we?

The part many people don't seem to understand is that they and all their weapons and explosives are already here, Baghdadi's are not.

At least we should be able to agree which groups have the largest current presence among us.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
Sierra Ledge Rat

Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
Feb 9, 2016 - 02:51pm PT
I find it funny the left has conditioned its followers to think that white men in the US are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists.


Look at the numbers:

There are roughly 170 million right-wingers and republicans in the USA compared to a few thousand ISIS.

Millions and millions of right-wingers and republicans are registered to vote. Doubt that anyone from ISIS is registered to vote.

Millions of right-wingers and republicans are in official government positions in the USA. I doubt that anyone from ISIS is an elected USA government official.

So who is the greatest threat to America? The threat of ISIS is utterly trivial compared to the threat of republicans and right-wingers who have infiltrated our government.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 9, 2016 - 02:55pm PT
There are roughly 170 million right-wingers and republicans in the USA compared to a few thousand ISIS.

Am I the only one appalled that the leading candidate of a major political party has called every member of her opposition party enemies of the country? Such rhetoric should be prima facie evidence of extremism. The sad thing is that I'd vote for her in preference to some Republican candidates I could name.

John
Reptyle195

Trad climber
Ca
Feb 9, 2016 - 05:04pm PT
There are three people you can never, repeat, never trust in this world.
Never trust an addict, they will always choose their addiction.
Never trust a coward, they will always.throw you under.the bus.
And never.trust an idealogue (extremist), they will twist everything they hear into a fit for their ideology, and if you dare disagree with them, they will pai t you as the worst possible sub- human.
Word to the wise...
D-<
Messages 41 - 60 of total 62 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta