398
399

The Republican Party is Acting Like a Second/Third World Regime. (self.politics)

submitted ago* by Ol_Lefteye

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Know in some of those "silly" little second or third world countries, how the political rhetoric becomes almost violent towards saintly Israel and the Great United Protector? THIS is what the Republican party has become; it has reached the level of anti-US extremist rhetoric. It openly calls for warfare in an attempt to posture like a Strongman who will puff up whatever great, evil, threatening Strawmen it can; invisible socialists that don't exist (most especially in the White house) sexually crazed, pill-popping whores that will corrupt America's semenic purity, and secular atheists who want the legal privilege to literally ejaculate inside your Bibles right after forcefully prying them from your hands.

It's ridiculous, and symptomatic of the complete intellectual and emotional breakdown of the Republican party. It's a dying animal showing the death-struggles as it fights to survive when the selection criterion of basic human decency and baseline sanity are so sharply against it.

Dear Republicans: you are failing, massively. The only option left is to shed insane bigotries and violence and join a civil, constructive discussion on what kind of society we want to build together.

EDIT: LOL, I literally made this post as ridiculously bombastic and parabolic as I could, using the style of /r/circlejerk mixed with Colbert. I was a solid [9.5] on a treescale when I made this. Good job reddit. Did you upvote this because you believe it, or because shit's ridiculous?

top 200 commentsshow all 346
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]banned_andeh 75 points76 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As long as we have so many single issue voters on abortion, it won't matter. You can get 40% of the vote in the US just by getting on stage and saying "I'll outlaw abortion", even though you'd have no authority to do so.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Better yet, when you fail to do what you couldn't have done in the first place, you have "damn those evil libruls didn't let me do it, vote for me again and this time we'll get them" for your re-election campaign.

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[–]BitchinIndika 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The fact that abortion is an issue for you people says it all. Here's a tip - if someone wants an abortion, you need to let them have it. It's none of your fucking business, whether you approve or not. Making, or even suggesting, a law that would prevent any woman from having one for any reason she wants is fucking barbaric. It's HER body, fetuses ARE NOT people, and religion has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in politics, including all that "under god" bullshit you people added in later.

[–]bigmad50 62 points63 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Easy with the "you people". Not all Americans feel this way. I see no place for religion in government, and see no place for government at the doctor's office. Unfortunately, during campaign season, this rhetoric draws viewers to cable news shows. It's sad that there are millions of Americans that will vote for a president based on a social issue that they don't have the power to change.

[–]SQRPrime 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see any place for religion in goverment, and I think the GOP has become a party dominated by nuts who would make American into a Christian-based theocracy. And the best way to fight back against the GOP right now is to weaken Mitt Romney's run for the White House.

So, here are few facts about Mitt Romney, suitable for copying, pasting, printing, linking, etc...

14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney FLIP-FLOPS that were dug up by John McCain:

http://www.businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-dug-up-by-john-mccain-2012-1#1-on-immigration-for-a-path-to-citizenship-then-against-1

Romney RAISED TAXES on businesses by $300 Million while he was Mass. governor:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/02/politics/main3445281.shtml

Has flip-flopped so much, that fellow Republican Jon Huntsman called him a "PERFECTLY LUBRICATED WEATHERVANE":

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/28/huntsman-romneys-a-perfectly-lubricated-weathervane/

Romney, THE BANKER'S CANDIDATE, is raising vast sums of money from the "too big to fail" banks and investment firms on Wall Street... vastly more than any other candidate including Obama:

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-big-wall-street-banks-are-already-trying-to-buy-the-2012-election

Romney STRAPPED HIS DOG TO THE ROOF OF HIS CAR and went on a 12-hour drive. Dog vomited. Romney hosed off suffering animal and put him back on the roof!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085442/Newt-Gingrich-reminds-voters-Mitt-Romneys-biggest-gaffes-For-The-Dogs-ad.html

[–]Ambiwlans 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that we need to focus on the Republican congress. Obama needs Teddy Roosevelt style majorities.

[–]thenuge26 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Daily Mail is not helping your cause. Find a real source for the last one, or just take it off completely.

[–]englabenny -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In defense of 'you people', americans are ultimately responsible for their government, if it was justly elected or not, and 'you people' is a way to push them to either like it or do something about it.

[–]Vestrati 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You can't pick where you're born, and it's not easy to change the country you're a citizen of.

[–]jonblaze32 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, I don’t think the American public is “ultimately responsible” for the actions of our government –we only have a very marginal say in what becomes law and what is enforced from that law. It is our responsibility, however, to frame acceptable discourse.

[–]ScannerBrightly 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Interesting. I've always feared some people believe this. Who, pray tell, is responsible for the actions of the US government, if not the American citizens who comprise it, fund it, and support it either thru action or inaction?

[–]heycrecy 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The politicians, the people who voted for them, and the lobbyists, PAC's, and corporations that have bought this government.

I'll submit this example, you live in athens in the 5th century BC, your city has stuck a vein of silver you and let's say most people think that it should be spent on building up infrastructure and education, beautifying the city. The rich pentakosiomedemnoi, and hippias want to spend it on ships, well you're just a thete, you can't even hold public office (like 99% of Americans) so what do you do? Destabilize a threatened country with this naive idea of civil total war against a socio-economic monopoly that controls more wealth, ammunition, and ambition than you can fathom? Or do you try to get the change you want gradually through nonviolence and discontent?

edit socio-economic monopoly rather than majority in order to not muddle the argument

[–]ScannerBrightly 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If what you say was absolutely true, we'd still be Thete. Progress does happen, even if there are people killed getting us there.

[–]heycrecy 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dude, I'm not saying don't protest, I'm saying violence isn't going to get us anywhere. Look at Syria, how much worse could it be in America, a nuclear power? Can you say with absolute certainty that they wouldn't use them? Of course not, so what's better, being free and dead or alive and fed? It's naive to pass up on the current American golden age, even i it has ended in so many ways.

[–]jonblaze32 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not an apologist for apathy, I'm extremely politically active. However, to act as if working-class people have say in what specific policy is written is simply untrue. The constitution is specifically written as to "temper the passion of the people" by providing an apparatus where a learned aristocracy can create the rules we must all abide by.

This apparatus can sometimes work for the constituents of political candidates, but, statistically, this is not the strongest factor in decisions actually made.

[–]thenuge26 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am responsible for one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate. Out of 535 members of congress, I elect 2.

Therefore, despite being an American citizen, I am not responsible for the actions of the US Government.

[–]ScannerBrightly 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also the President and countless state and local officials.

If you say you are only "responsible" for a hand full of federal officials, than by your logic, nobody is responsible for the US government's actions. How's that work?

load more comments (8 replies)

    [–]EatingCake 5 points6 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    See, you say that, but the truth is for most American states abortion laws are much more liberal than most of Europes'. It's just we have a psycho vocal minority going on and on about banning them.

    [–]rainbowjarhead 1 point2 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    much more liberal than most of Europes

    That's not true, abortion is legally available on request in almost all of Europe, except for Ireland and some of the micro nations. France, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands are more than a majority of Europe and they all have laws protecting a women's right to choose and guaranteeing privacy between them and their doctors. There may be several countries in Europe that do not allow abortions on demand, but Monaco is not really comparable to Germany.

    In fact, over 60% of the world's women live in countries where they have the right to choose, America is not an oasis in a sea of patriarchy, but the attempts at moving it backwards to a more restrictive time are an attempt to move into a worldwide minority.

    load more comments (2 replies)

      [–]n734lq 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      americans are ultimately responsible for their government

      [–]LucidMetal 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      You're correct. People don't like to hear it but keep in mind that nearly 50% of our country's population is about as intelligent as a jello shot.

      [–]h0ncho 3 points4 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The bravery... Incalculable. We really needed someone to forcefully insert those opinions into the common narrative here on reddit.

      [–]bigthink 4 points5 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Abortion is not an issue for us. Abortion is an issue that leaders of the Republican party emphasize in the mainstream media in order to divert attention away from more important issues (the ones they can't win). It's a calculated move.

      [–]umbama 16 points17 points ago*

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Let me make this clear:

      implanted                                      just               1 hour
single                                         before             after
cell                                           birth              delivery
|------------------  9 months -------------------|------------------|

      Now then: where along this contunuum do you say the disposal of the foetus or child is entirely an issue for the mother? And could you explain why?

      [Update : forgot to state my own position. I don't think there's a single point on the continuum when a foetus suddenly achieves personhood; this makes for extremely difficult decisions. I think the position of the Catholic church, which seems to be that a single cell is a human with full human rights, is absurd; so too is some absolutist 'pro-choice' position that claims the only consideration is due to the mother. I don't think there's an easy answer and I think people should accept that and stop adopting extreme positions]

      [–]Flytape 12 points13 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I'm fine with current laws,

      (------3 months------) after that you must be at significant risk of death.

      [–]jonblaze32 8 points9 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      |------------- 9 months -----------------|------------------|----------X-----

                                                                  [somewhere during teenage years]

      [–]Ambiwlans 2 points3 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      This implies you think mothers should be allowed to abort 12 year olds.

      [–]egypturnash 2 points3 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      You've never had a teenage kid, have you. n.n

      [–]jerrybery 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Heh heh, South Park.

      [–]lost_at_moms_house 6 points7 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Why are we still talking about this? Where does the passion to continually bring up the abortion issue come from? Why can't we just agree to disagree and accept current law which is essentially a compromise?

      I'm no doctor but I think the point is that there is no place where an objective line can be drawn to say "Life begins here" (or at least not one that can be broadly understood or accepted). It's just one person's opinion vs. another's. "Implanted Single Cell" - unique human DNA but not life. "Just Before Birth" - clearly life.

      Can't we just put this fucking issue to bed? I seriously question the motivation of people who want to make all abortions illegal. I think it is generally religiously motivated. I don't think anyone is on the other end of the spectrum wanting to make infanticide legal. In my opinion, current law is the middle ground and should be left alone.

      [–]umbama 1 point2 points ago*

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Why can't we just agree to disagree and accept current law which is essentially a compromise

      I think I agree with you. I was responding to the claim:

      if someone wants an abortion, you need to let them have it. It's none of your fucking business, whether you approve or not

      [–]wasniahC 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Indeed. That's a pretty poor argument in favor of pro-choice, since you could pretty much say the same thing about say, murder, or rape.

      [–]Show-Me-Your-Moves 5 points6 points ago*

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Carl Sagan and others have pointed out that "personhood" is when the capacity for human thought arises. Before this time, the fetus exists in a primitive animal state.

      "If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible. It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses. More research would help… If we wanted to make the criterion still more stringent, to allow for occasional precocious fetal brain development, we might draw the line at six months. This, it so happens, is where the Supreme Court drew it in 1973--although for completely different reasons."

      [–]mineralfellow 6 points7 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      |---- inside the woman ----|---- outside the woman ----|

      Seems pretty straightforward.

      [–]umbama 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      It's an opinion. A minority one, that deems it simply the mother's concern, killing an unborn child right up to the moment of birth. Bit of a strange thing to say, given that it's not actually an issue and you'll just turn people off.

      I won't argue the issue with you; there's clearly no point. As Anscombe said:

      I do not want to argue with you; you show a corrupt mind.

      [–]ImInterested 5 points6 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Personally I believe any decisions to be made about the fetus or child is the business of mother and father. Why, it is non of my business.

      I have 2 questions :

      Where along the continuum do you feel it is my business to make decisions during your pregnancy?

      Will you take responsibility for any financial/personal obligations that result from decisions you make for other people?

      [–]reeditt 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Currently, only the mother makes the decision but the father gets most of the financial obligations from her decision.

      [–]umbama -2 points-1 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      any decisions to be made about the fetus or child is the business of mother and father

      You seem to be approving of infanticide. That can't be your position. Care to clarify?

      [–]ImInterested 5 points6 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      No I do not approve infanticide, you apparently wanted to complicate the conversation and I did not feel like writing a wall of text.

      A hypothetical for you, the child is born with physical deformities that will require extreme medical risks and the probability of the child requiring lifetime care. Personally I think it is the parents decision. Please clarify where you think your opinion matters in this hypothetical?

      Your edit to your first post clarified your position to some degree but still did not answer my first question. Your position still seems to be that someone other than the mother, father and doctor should be involved with decisions regrading a pregnant woman/fetus or the parents and a new born child. The second question was not addressed at all. Personally I agree with you that the decisions are very complicated but I also think they are very private and personal.

      Please provide a hypothetical where you are pregnant (your gf/wife if your a guy) and think my opinion should take precedence over yours and your partner.

      [–]umbama 3 points4 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      No I do not approve infanticide, you apparently wanted to complicate the conversation

      Er...no...in the context of a discussion about abortion you said that any decisions about the foetus or child were the business of the mother or father.

      Please clarify where you think your opinion matters in this hypothetical?

      Sure. My opinion matters about the convenient disposal of handicapped children in the same way that my, your and everyone else's opinion mattered in regards to the Nazis euthanising handicapped children.

      So that is to say: there's a generally accepted standard in our society that we don't kill children for our convenience. Of course you know this so I'm not clear why you're asking.

      Please provide a hypothetical where you are pregnant (your gf/wife if your a guy) and think my opinion should take precedence over yours and your partner.

      Of course. Let's not personalise it and claim we're talking about your opinion only. Let's say we're talking about the law. Over here in the UK we've recently had a fuss about the possibility that some doctors are aborting foetuses solely because of their sex, which is not legal (at least, probably not legal). I think that society should intervene in the case of a patriarchal culture from the Middle East or Indian Subcontinent that values boys over girls, women over men, to say that we will not countenance abortion on those grounds alone.

      And more broadly: we still have to understand that absolutist positions won't wash here. There isn't a single moment where foetuses acquire rights.

      [–]ThomasII 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I honestly don't think the law as written can somehow give the unborn child a right (not to be descriminated against on the basis of sex) while not giving it the right (to be alive).

      The whole sex thing I think is a really practical application of why if your okay for abortion based on 'the woman's interest' you can't suddenly start Not okaying it for other reasons. The position is inconsistant. Either your not okay with it or you are. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      [–]ImInterested 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I have to go out now and can't reply to everything you said but I will ask one question.

      My opinion matters about the convenient disposal of handicapped children in the same way that my, your and everyone else's opinion mattered in regards to the Nazis euthanising handicapped children.

      Did you really just compare a parents private and personal medical decision regarding their own fetus/child to the Nazi's euthanizing handicapped children? Please clarify, it is interesting/ironic that you choose to compare a state policy in support of state policy.

      I will be back later, you have still not answered most of the questions or hypotheticals I have posed. Your last answer there I will address briefly. Why shouldn't we personalize it?

      The issue of female genocide is an issue I could discuss further.

      [–]AllanEightyFour 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Heh, you're one of them

      load more comments (3 replies)

        [–]BlandGuy 3 points4 points ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Why do you weight one hour as being about the same as a trimester?

        And I don't see any one point, because abortion isn't ever "entirely an issue for the mother" in any pragmatic sense.

        load more comments (11 replies)

          [–]singlerainbow 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          You people?

          [–]Intrica 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          You're trying to argue about how important flossing is to a dentist.

          [–]can_i_have_a_name 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          not that i agree with pro-life, but you do have to take into consideration that the argument about when life starts is a valid argument that can be raised even with out the religious backing.

          [–]baileyaye 3 points4 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          you people need to fuck off and stop telling us how to do things. we have too many stupid voters to worry about, but thanks anyways captain obvious.

          [–]AHemlockslie 3 points4 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          You make a variety of very valid points, but none of them matter to anti-abortion people because it completely ignores the one point that matters to them, the only leg they need to hold their entire stance together. (I misread, you do mention it, but they need proof, they need to be dissuaded) To them, it's about the life of the baby. You're not choosing not to have a kid; you're murdering the one you already have. This problem is exacerbated by laws liberals and conservatives agree upon. If you, for example, kill a pregnant mom's fetus, you can, in at least some states, be charged with murder, even if the mom survives. If the mom dies, too, I believe you have a chance at catching a double homicide charge.

          So how do we overcome this belief? We have to change the notion that the fetus is already a complete, separate being. It must become something not yet living once more. They mustn't be able to believe this fetus even knows it got a chance to live yet. I've yet to come up with an adequate response to achieve this, but I can at least offer a theory on the backing of the other laws, and lay some groundwork for once the decision on life is made.

          When someone is murdered, who suffers the most? The first instinct is the victim, but he's dead, and no matter your religion, he's rather unlikely to care. Either there's no soul, so he doesn't exist anymore, you go to some form of heaven, in which he's in paradise, you go to hell, so he's much more focused on the torment and how he earned it, or you get reincarnated and forget all about the last life.

          The ones who will suffer the most because of you being murdered will be those left alive. Those who you shared your life with, who will have to continue living, reminded every day that you could have been there if it wasn't for (murderer). He didn't just murder you, he also impacted everyone you knew. With a fetus, though, the only one who has been touched by the fetus is the mother and father, and they have obviously come to the conclusion to willfully let go. If they didn't believe the fetus to have ever been alive, to have ever been able to advance to being a full fledged individual, there is absolutely no victim here.

          EDIT: (correction)

          [–]ThomasII 2 points3 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I have never saw the antiabortion crew as being pragmatic or utilitarian.

          It goes like this. People are valuable and have rights the least of which is to be continue to be able to live (in various ways of saying this, access to water, housing , etc ,etc).

          Babies (even unborn babies) being people is what makes it problematic, not because the law makers are dreadfully missing a person who never got to the prime of life, but because there was a person who could have gotten there, but was stopped.

          The whole no victum thing doesn't apply cause its a rights issue not a making amends issue. Your right about the other laws reflecting the issue, you choose to focus on very victim centric laws. Those other laws (reflecting say collective actions and sueing for the losses less then immediately clear) make the issue a lot less clear whether they are reflecting a violation of rights or a violation of wellness.

          [–]goblue21 3 points4 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Yes religion has no place in politics, but that still makes abortion an important issue. It is HER body, but the fetus is a product of the man involved, and also while it may not be a person, the fetus has the potential to be one. Disregarding religion, this is still a very important issue that regards 3 individuals and not just one. Throwing out the rights of two people and giving all the rights to the woman seems pretty barbaric. Im not saying that abortion is right or wrong, Im just saying that it is a very important issue that needs better commentary on it than "life starts at conception" and "women can do whatever they want with their body", because those notions polarize the debate and make everyone forget what were actually dealing with, the rights of 3 humans (1 potential one)

          [–]ThomasII 0 points1 point ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I always loved the group that thought for some reason, people ought to not to vote on their values or the groups they esteem, but rather on hypotetical issues that they obviously don't feel as strongly about.

          Who's trying to steal whose vote here?

          load more comments (2 replies)

            [–]plasmalaser1 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            This is my problem with religion. You can preach all you want but don't get in the way of me or my family. Why is it so hard to get across to them?

            [–]wasniahC 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It isn't only religious people that are pro-life.

            [–]Ol_Lefteye[S] 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            This is a useless truism. Religiosity is heavily tied to being anti-choice: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/07/gallup-churchgoers-more-likely-to-be-pro-life-on-abortion/

            [–]wasniahC 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Yes, but not all pro-lifers are religious. Saying that religious people are more likely to be pro-life doesn't mean that everybody pro-life is religion. There's no useless truisms here. I find myself in the grey area between pro-life and pro-choice, as an atheist, and hate to see people refer to pro-life as simply a religious standpoint.

            load more comments (13 replies)

              [–]starveling 7 points8 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              ANGRY SELF-POST ON R/POLITICS. CERTAINLY SHALL CHANGE THE WORLD!

              [–]Ol_Lefteye[S] 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              MY KARMA IS DIRECTLY REDEEMABLE FOR FREEDOM

              load more comments (1 reply)

                [–]itsfastitsfun 6 points7 points ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Problem is firstly in education and secondly in the political system encouraging bipolar bipartisan politics

                [–]crashorbit 1 point2 points ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Any education that includes factual, evidence based curriculum will be seen as "anti-conservative" and will be resisted.

                [–]douglasmacarthur 5 points6 points ago*

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Yeah this vague, condesending, hyperbolic mass psycho-analysis of Republicans you've written in order to circlejerk on a leftist forum is going to encourage "constructive discussion" with them.

                [–]Oce_Lot 7 points8 points ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Actually, this is kind of a good thing for democrats. Independent voters are VERY important in American elections. The number of independent voters in America is around 30% source#In_the_United_States)

                If the independent voters see how crazy some of these republicans are (some not all) the will most likely vote for Obama.

                TL,DR The republicans are killing their own party

                [–]Del_Castigator 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Incorrect social conservatives are killing the republican party.

                [–]habitualLineStepper 31 points32 points ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                It actually seems to me that the religious nuts' influence in American politics has only been growing. You are right that they think and act like a 3rd world theological regime, but I see the whole US being dragged down that way.

                • I see the importance of education being relegated (stupid people are way easier to lead and to brainwash into following some leader that has been "sent by god"),

                • I see the middle class being slowly killed off (no middle class, no 1st world economy or society),

                • I see pushes to make the working environment closer to that in China or India,

                • I see more and more religion in politics, and more and more of the messianic talk that's usually a staple of lunatics.

                If the GOP is dying, it's doing its best to drag the US with it, and it's doing a great job at it.

                The things that worries even non-US-ians is that the US being what it is (a superpower armed to the teeth), a collapse into a christian-taliban society would probably mess shit up for everybody else, too. Otherwise, to be honest, it would be funny (although a little sad at the same time), to watch a nation sabotage itself to such a horrifying degree.

                [–]HINKLO 3 points4 points ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                I refuse to believe that anyone is actively and consciously trying to bring our country down. They are trying to take "the other guy" down and inflicting a great deal of harm on the country as a whole in the process. Essentially, the welfare of this country is something they care about, but I feel as though it has become secondary to being on top.

                [–]habitualLineStepper 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                That's why I didn't say "intentionally".

                [–]HINKLO 1 point2 points ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                If the GOP is dying, it's doing its best to drag the US with it, and it's doing a great job at it.

                That, to me implies that it is a conscious (ie. intentional) effort.

                load more comments (5 replies)

                  [–]dicktharippa 5 points6 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Yes, those barbaric, third world strongmen, who invent puffed up domestic enemies, and who are preoccupied with stopping athiests from ejaculating inside your bibles, need to join us in a civil, constructive, discussion.

                  Wow.

                  [–]michaelrohansmith 22 points23 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I noticed recently that Americans often vote on working days and I wonder if this means that political parties promote their candidates to non-working and (usually) retired people.

                  [–]Kaunigmna 7 points8 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I dont know about other states, But here in NY we legally have to be given time off on an election day to go and vote. This time off is normally paid as to not deter people from not voting from fear of losing pay.

                  [–]sge_fan 8 points9 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  That's where 80% defect voting machines in predominantly Democratic districts come into play. Long line-ups, waiting periods of two or more hours will keep you from voting when you have to get back to work. This was successfully executed in Ohio in the 2004 election.

                  [–]DannyDemotta 1 point2 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  http://www.longdistancevoter.org/ohio -- I believe you were looking for this.

                  This, of course, won't help people who purposely wait until the last minute, just so they'll be able to hop on Facebook or Twitter, or otherwise complain to the world that they "had to wait in line for ___ hours just to be able to vote."

                  If their candidate(s) win(s)? "it was worth every minute!" Their candidate(s) lose(s)? "ELECTION FRAUD!!!!!"

                  [–]annainpajamas 1 point2 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  cause their post on Fbook is the problem? or them waiting til the last minute matters?

                  democracy's the important thing to make as easy as possible for people. People are people, some will wait til the last minute, some will be attention whores, some will be oversharers, some will be dumb etc... Does that honestly mean their vote isn't important? If so, i have a great philosophy for you! Social Darwinism.

                  [–]barksatthemoon 6 points7 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I think it is in all states, although I don't think it's necessarily paid time off.

                  [–]TroutM4n 1 point2 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  But not primary days.

                  [–]lbsubstylee 9 points10 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I still think voting should be done over the course of a weekend... it makes so much more sense.

                  [–]jeffinfremont 10 points11 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  100% vote by mail. We do it here in Washington and Oregon and it's working extremely well.

                  [–]quadrapod 6 points7 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Saturday and Sunday are Sabbath days for some religious groups and I know for a fact that some orthodox Jews take that very seriously. To the point where the temple safe holding some of the more extravagant religious pieces is designed to unlock and open its self automatically to avoid the work involved in unlocking and opening the door. So having the election on one of those days would unjustifiably violate their right to practice a tenet of their faith that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights. I may not like religion, and I may not like the fact that religious freedom has started to mean "give me what I want or your violating my faith", but I will continue to support the freedom to practice whatever stupid thing you want so long as it isn't wronging anyone else.

                  [–]narpas 5 points6 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Voting over the weekend means two or three days to vote. I don't see how days of rest should be a problem.

                  [–]Atheist101 3 points4 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Friday full day, Saturday full day, sunday full day

                  [–]vinod1978 3 points4 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Having a multiple day vote could change the result of an election. We all live in a 24/7 news cycle society. If you recall, some stations like NBC erroneously called the election for Al Gore which made less voters in California go to the polls. Since then news organizations have decided not to project until after the polls close. This is a voluntary commitment. There is no way new organizations would keep silent for 3 days. Their coverage with exit poll data and reporting in what has been counted could easily sway an election.

                  [–]lbsubstylee 0 points1 point ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I totally agree with everything you said, but something needs to be done when MOST eligible voters in the United States simply do not vote. One major reason is because voting is done during the week when most people work. Now, is the trade-off of having weekend voting better or worse than potentially aggravating a percentage of U.S. citizens...

                  [–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  The elderly are the most reliable voting block there is.

                  [–]tofagerrl 12 points13 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  And that's why they have Medicare and Social Security while young people have rising tuition, failing public schools, and high unemployment.

                  [–]lordperiwinkle 6 points7 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Voting on Tuesdays is a throwback to our agrarian past. People had to get to the polls by foot or by horse, either by carriage or riding. This took time. Saturday was to close to the Sabbath, Sunday. Elections could not be held on Mondays either since people could not travel on Sundays. Wednesdays were market days, so they were out. This left Tuesday. Employers cannot penalize an employee for taking time to vote. People can also use early and mail in ballots.

                  [–]sniffles_snort 3 points4 points ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  And people who are salaried instead of hourly wage earners

                  [–]Pandaburn 0 points1 point ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  American elections are always on Tuesday, traditionally so that farmers could have a day to travel to town where the polls were after attending church on their day of rest.

                  Now they are open all day and many States allow early voting in case you cant make it.

                  [–]almillarskovich 0 points1 point ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I'm not clear how this relates to the topic. There're a bunch of threads about precisely the issue you raised. But perhaps I'm missing a connection--could you elaborate?

                  [–]korvanos 0 points1 point ago

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  In my part of washington state, all the ballots are mail in.

                  load more comments (17 replies)

                    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    This is the exact inverse of the Republican argument against the Democrats and they're both shitty arguments.

                    The "anti-U.S." thing is absurd and should never be brought up in a serious argument. As a Democrat, I'm sure you understand how annoying it is to hear FOX News people call the Democrat agenda "anti-American" so don't start using the same bullshit rhetoric as the people you're so adamantly opposed to.

                    There are a lot of religious nutballs taking over the Republican party but the media makes the Republican party out to be far worse than it actually is. More rational candidates like Gary Johnson were absolutely shut out in debates, the people never even had a chance to hear a rational view point. Elections are totally dependent on media airtime now and the only candidates who are going to have a shot are those who look good on television and will make for good TV.

                    You've imagined the entire Republican party to be what you've been shown on TV but this really isn't the case. There are plenty of rational, intelligent Republicans. The media is the real problem.

                    Disclaimer: I don't associate with any party but tend to lean liberal.

                    [–]crusty_old_gamer 4 points5 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Not the Republican party. The entire U.S. government, with both parties fully complicit.

                    [–]Bigpapapumpyouup 16 points17 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Agreed, had the Republicans spent the last 3 years having a sane conversation with Americans instead of beating down Obama, they would be in a much better spot right now.

                    [–]marx2k 13 points14 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    They doubled down on the hopes that all of their bitching, conspiracy theories and stonewalling would get them their way in the end. It didn't. They painted themselves into a corner. They're still going full steam ahead into the abyss. I say let them.

                    [–]EricWRN 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Didn't they win in 2010?

                    [–]DannyDemotta 4 points5 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Shhhhh....you're not supposed to mention stuff like that, and how Republicans control 28 state legislatures outright (both houses), vs 15 for Democrats; the 29 Republican Governors (vs 20 Dems); etc etc.

                    Let them continue to live in their make-believe world where nothing other than the party affiliation of the President matters.

                    [–]EricWRN 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I guess I won't also mention that aside from convoluted discussions about free birth control and teaching evolution, Obama is essentially a third Bush term and many actual liberals hate him for that.

                    [–]DannyDemotta 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Then again, I'm sure back in 2000-2004, there were about the same number of actual Conservatives saying that Bush was more like a 3rd Clinton term. Such an observation is more a reaffirmation that the system is working (we have, usually, 55-45ish balances of power, instead of 70/30 or worse) than it is an indictment of a broken check-and-balanced system where any President that wants a bill done can have it drafted, passed and in effect in a month or less.

                    The 2008 Rumors of the GOPs demise were (and are now) greatly exaggerated. A 2nd Obama term doesn't mean much without at least 5 (if not 10) Governorships or Legislatures changing hands. It REALLY won't mean much if the Republicans maintain the House and mid-40s (or even 50) Seats in the Senate.

                    [–]omplatt 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    unfortunately rationality is not the lowest common denominator

                    [–]TurkJas 13 points14 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I think we need a new political party, that represents all logical people within the United States. From all religious beliefs or the lack thereof, one that we won't have to compromise on.

                    I personally would vote for a political party that gives everyone individual freedom (no restrictions on abortion, gay marriage, Religion etc...), with a foreign policy that does not fuck over our soldiers. I'm also tired of the continuous support of Israel, even in cases where Israel is clearly wrong. (I'm not saying Israel is the devil) End to War on Drugs, lets spend some of that money on rehabilitation for addicts and the rest on education, not a scared straight type education but an informative one. End to covering up Bankers who fuck people over, (not all bankers). End to unnecessary foreign aid, lets give foreign aid to countries where the people are starving, not to countries so they can built their arsenals. End to this religious talk in politics, If this country is secular why are we constantly so infatuated with the candidates religion? There is no stipulation in the constitution that says a candidate must be of a certain ethnicity, group, sexual orientation or religion. End to bull shit wars, the end result of these wars are the majority of the region hating us, and American soldiers dying, with no democracy in sight. I do believe we should intervene in cases of crimes against humanity or genocide. End to people without healthcare, how is this even a discussion, if you are a real christian or of any other faith, you should be supporting free healthcare. If you are a logical secularist or atheist, you should be sporting universal healthcare. End to Prisons becoming money making machines, prisons have turned into businesses and that should not be their purpose. End to gun crimes in improvised urban areas, Instead of giving aid to foreign countries that use the aid for weapons, why don't we built businesses in Urban areas. With jobs less people are likely to get caught up in gangs and criminal acts.

                    Lets fix the problems in our own country, before we attempt to become world police. If some have you have experienced a friend, or loved one lost to gun crimes, or pointless bullshit then you will understand. (BTW I am not against the right to own firearms, I just believe people should be evaluated before being given firearms, and some firearms should be outlawed because of their potential threat to the people. We need to completely get rid of illegal guns, obviously that is impossible but we can minimize their impact.)

                    I'm tired of having to choose a candidate based on the lesser evil principle, i want to choose a candidate that is actually going to do something for Americans and the World.

                    [–]almillarskovich 9 points10 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I think we need a new political party, that represents all logical people within the United States.

                    It sounds like you mean "everyone who shares your views". I think we need either a myriad of political parties or none at all, personally.

                    [–]TurkJas 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I wasn't proposing a one-party system, I was merely stating that we need to be able to have new political partys and give them a chance. I only described who I would vote for, any I believe many people share my view. We are easily pushed to one side or the other based on a single issue, that shouldn't be the case in a Democracy.

                    [–]Unfair 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    heh except for free healthcare you pretty much described Ron Paul's campaign.

                    [–]TurkJas 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I do like Ron Paul, I wouldn't agree with everything, but his foreign policy is something i would agree with.

                    [–]wolfzguardian 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    My opinion is that the republicans know that Obama has a high chance at winning the next election and threw out they're pawns and saved they're queen for the next election.

                    [–]Dont_trustme 3 points4 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Thats it, I'm calling shenanigans! Shenanigans to the entire political cycle!

                    [–]wolfzguardian 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Just think about it, the democrats have a very high chance at Obama being elected again so why put out your best candidate at this time when he could lose?

                    [–]grammarnazi900 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    *their

                    [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Because the republicans didn't sweep in 2010 and Obama's approval rating has been so high?

                    Not sure where you're developing this opinion other than a form of data collection I like to call "wishful thinking".

                    [–]wolfzguardian 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    No, that's not the way I'm thinking, I'm thinking that the republicans believe Obama will be re elected and don't want to put out better candidates on the chance they will lose. The reasons are pretty basic and in a game of sorts, this may be the best plan they can have at taking the house back.

                    [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Well yeah, I understand what you're thinking but again, the Republicans swept in 2010 and Obama's approval rating has been dismal for 2 years so I'm guessing that your thought process is essentially flawed.

                    I'm not disagreeing that they don't have shitty candidates but I think Obama was and is a shitty candidate as well. I think it's more reasonable to assume that the republican candidates are just out of touch with the average american.

                    [–]wolfzguardian 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I'm assuming that you support republicans based on your opinions?

                    [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Absolutely not.

                    [–]LockeAndKeyes 2 points3 points ago*

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I couldn't agree more. It was just a few years ago when I would've considered myself republican, and shared a lot of neo-con view points (pro-war, anti-drug, marriage between man and woman type things). But between the hateful rhetoric that's come out while Obama has been in office and the sheer lack of logic in it, I can't respect their view points anymore, nor can I share them. Thanks to the republican party, I'm now socially liberal. Let people do whatever they want so long as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. Edit for spelling

                    [–]mayorHB 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Lots of thesuarus words that said exactly nothing....try one simple point or example and we can go from there....

                    [–]inthrees 7 points8 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    • Demagoguery to engender anger and fear in the citizenry against another portion of the citizenry. Within our own borders.
                    • Attempts to revise history and indoctrinate children by mandating the teaching of utterly false 'facts' in school.
                    • Smoke and mirrors focus on completely unimportant issues, ignoring and glossing over the important stuff. "Thousands of people are dying overseas in our wars and you can't find a job, but look - TWO GUYS ARE KISSING AND TRYING TO GET MARRIED. CAN WE FOCUS HERE?"
                    • Eroding of the separation of church and state. The most extreme candidate right now (and 'extremist' is pretty accurate) would have the US be a Christian mirror image of Iran. All while shit-talking Iran. /Boggle.
                    • Completely sold out the populace in favor of megacorporate interests.

                    Yeah, been done with them for years. Seen through their shit for years.

                    But it seems too many citizens buy into the whole 'we have hate for sale and you need some' rhetoric.

                    [–]madleg 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I agree. Agitation Propaganda is only effective on a decidedly unsophisticated audience. That it can be so effective in a first world country is shameful.

                    [–]Kaliman10 3 points4 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Pardon my ignorance, but what is a second world country? I think you have this concept wrong.

                    [–]jabbercocky 4 points5 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    A second world country was part of the USSR. Third world was unaffiliated. As that the USSR is now defunct, first world is used to describe so-called "developed countries" and third world to describe "developing countries." Second world is no longer used.

                    This huge, simple error made me question whether there was anything of value in the post. And, sadly, there really wasn't.

                    The republicans are idiots, granted, but they're pandering to a base of socially and religiously conservative zealots so as to further their big business interests. These conservative zealots have far more opinions than education, and those opinions are created by a media system (FOX News) that is structured to help big businesses by decimating the middle class in America.

                    That's what this post should have been about - about the fact that the distribution of wealth in this country is looking more and more like a third world country, where there's a very tiny number of very wealthy people, and a very large number of very poor people. At the rate we're going in the US, we're not going to look like a first world country in a couple generations. And it is directly attributable to republican policies and democrats who are unable to do anything about it (or who are also lobbied enough so that what they attempt to do is largely ineffectual).

                    [–]sge_fan 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Not part of the USSR, but rather part of the Soviet Bloc. Countries like Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and, of course, the USSR.

                    [–]jabbercocky 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Oh yeah, good catch.

                    [–]Kaliman10 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    A second world country was part of the USSR.

                    TIL.

                    about the fact that the distribution of wealth in this country is looking more and more like a third world country, where there's a very tiny number of very wealthy people, and a very large number of very poor people.

                    This is happening almost everywhere in the world. You're not alone.

                    [–]BitchinIndika 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Most of the countries that comprised the old Soviet Union.

                    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    America needs a Teddy Roosevelt.

                    [–]sge_fan 0 points1 point ago*

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Teddy Roosevelt would be too far left even for the Democrats in today's world.

                    [–]iia 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    America needs an Evelyn Baring.

                    [–]EricWRN 3 points4 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    A wild circlejerk appears.

                    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    DAE REPUBLICANS ARE BAD?!?!

                    lol, i'm political.

                    [–]principle 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    NO! We want them replaced by other parties.

                    [–]wut44 5 points6 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    With hats and balloons and noise makers!

                    [–]principle 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    As long as they make multiparty elections possible, which gives hope that people will get at least some representation.

                    [–]Ascz 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    There's this intresting article in an almost unknown site which I may translate into english from the original italian version about the republican primaries. The title translates about "Early Middle Ages Primaries". Worth a read, if you know some italian and are intrested.

                    [–]trolleyfan 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    What do you mean "acting?"

                    [–]Radico87 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    yes, many republicans are bigots. Just like many democrats are hippies. The optimal platform is middle-of-the-road. Mathematically, anyway. Realistically, you'll probably just piss off the extremes and since they're the loudest, most annoying ones, your platform will suffer.

                    [–]Pottersville 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    How is the destruction of the Republican Party a bad thing?

                    [–]Raistlinseyes 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Random aside, but not many people seem to grasp this concept. The designation first, second, or third world countries has nothing to do with the status of life. First world designates that in the cold war that country was aligned with capitalist countries. Second world designates the same for communist countries. Third world means that they stayed neutral / non-aligned with any of the major powers.

                    Sorry for the rant.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world

                    [–]DannyDemotta 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

                    Scroll through it. You're going to see a whole lot of Red in there. Dems control 15 states outright; Republicans, 28 states.

                    Dying what again? You seem to forget that President is about the only national office. So things like "National Approval Rating" don't really matter for the Senate and House, because they're elected by states.

                    But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

                    [–]unstablxxx 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Dear OP... are the republicans killing citizens? Sending armed men to the pols to prevent voting? Murdering their opponents? No? I didn't think so. Maybe it's you who should shut the fuck up with your 'violent rhetoric'.

                    [–]up2oneghz 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Criticizing others does not make the world a better place nor does it accomplish anything. I can tell from your posts you have nothing to add. You seem to like to post the political forums. That is truly sad.... You have done a great job of trying to split peoples attention by belittling them and being a grammar nazi. In the end, what have you added to the world, NOTHING. Why don't you take your intellect and do something productive with it. The world will be a better place if you do.

                    [–]unstablxxx 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Calling people for their misdeeds is, in fact, a public service. And when did I ever criticize someone's grammar?

                    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Go to a second or third world regime and the Republican party will seem like a saint. This is just as bad as the rhetoric on fox news.

                    [–]Ol_Lefteye[S] 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I agree completely! nononono really, I made this submission when I was high as a kite and deliberately made as bombastic, parabolic as post as I could, in the style of /r/circlejerk mixed with Colbert.

                    [–]Thwart 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Strip away the garbage dressings and the wedge issues and you are all Keynsian war mongering big government fuckheads 'for the children' arguing like children.

                    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I think you blew a wad.

                    [–]Jettest 4 points5 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I'm going to get downvoted just for mentioning Ron Paul, but please read this with an open mind as I read r/politics with an open mind.

                    I'll agree whole heartedly that a lot of republicans are acting like insufferable twats, but not all of them are. There's only a few that don't, believe it or not. Ron Paul defends the constitution and is basically the Thomas Jefferson of our day. He doesn't care about what you do in your life. He doesn't know how to run your life. The constitution doesn't permit him to run your life! He doesn't have the authority to run the world and the constitution doesn't give him the authority to run the world! Going into Afghanistan and Iraq and threatening Iran is the worst possible thing to do for our national security. The American people are less safe, it's the policy that's wrong. We need a new foreign policy that says we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our borders, and defend this country. This is far from isolationism. It's called non-interventionism. In the past we have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or to go and aid somebody. We haven't even declared a war since WWII! We've drifted so far from what is truly American and truly constitutional.

                    [–]essenseVA 5 points6 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I only can get behind maybe 30% of what Ron Paul talks about, but his views on war is that 30%.

                    [–]Patrick5555 2 points3 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    What do you seriously agree with more than 30% of what obama says? If he is 90% bush.....

                    [–]Ol_Lefteye[S] 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    TIL that Ron Paul is Literally Thomas Jefferson. Just kidding, I already knew that.

                    [–]NoGardE 3 points4 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Meanwhile, Obama behaves like a 3rd world dictator, starting wars, spying on the populace, and pursuing whistleblowers more than all administrations combined. It's not just the Republicans. It's /r/politics' precious Democrats too.

                    [–]redfox2 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I agree. Long held bias, superstitions and beliefs are difficult to put aside, and the Republicans, mostly old white people, are like the old South after the civil war. They just do not want to let go. I can't wait till they all die off, so we can have constructive discussions on the state of our union and how to make it better.

                    [–]AmoCrescent 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    America! Y u no more like Canada? P.S. Sorry if this offended you.

                    [–]snocreature4life 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    "P.S. Sorry if this offended you." the difference from an up-vote or a down-vote. That you for considering the outcome of your words on others.. up-vote : )

                    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    /r/circlejerk has sprung a leak again

                    [–]UhOhPoopedIt 6 points7 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    SO BRAVE

                    [–]punksdad 1 point2 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    ... secular atheists who want the legal privilege to literally ejaculate inside your Bibles right after forcefully prying them from your hands.

                    That's the most awesome thing I've read all day.

                    [–]dd99 3 points4 points ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Republicans are fascists (I'm not the first to say that but it is true), but Democrats are ultra conservatives (again, I'm not the first). When Obama was running for president I had been a yellow dog democrat for 40 years and I was happy and proud to vote for him.

                    I'm not a democrat anymore. I'm a member of the Occupy party. I have never occupied anything and probably never will, but they are the people who express my views and my goals for this country and I will support them with my money.

                    [–]beauseph 0 points1 point ago

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    you should support your local occupy, even if you can't attend they are attempting to allow the parliamentary processes they conduct to go online.

                    There are elements in the R party that I like, and elements in D too. But both parties are terrible with the mainstream narrative, usually outright lying even.

                    load more comments (1 reply)

                      [–]thatfunnyfeeling 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Dear Republicans: you are failing, massively. The only option left is to shed insane bigotries and violence and join a civil, constructive discussion on what kind of society we want to build together.

                      I'm sure they're listening to your carefully worded letter.

                      Get this circlejerking shit out of here.

                      [–]Asyx -1 points0 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Like I said many times on reddit; The republican president candidates wouldn't even clean a toilet in European parlaments. But that's nothing new.

                      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Why do we think they are any different from the Democrats. Same people behind closed doors, all assholes, crooks and rapists. They have people that they cater to and NEWS FLASH... it ain't the American voter.

                      [–]ICanSayItHere 3 points4 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      sigh Democrats are just as bad, in their own ways. All this Repub vs. Dem stuff = Divided Americans conquered by bankers, politicians and their corporate sponsors.

                      [–]BobbyLarken 2 points3 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      The republican party has been hijacked, but don't underestimate the corruption within the Democratic party. While the Democratic party shines better for domestic policies, its members still have a mixed history of supporting bad legislation. E.G. Patriot Act, ACTA, and TSA. It is only within the last 6 months have the Republicans been painted as sexually repressed war mongers, while there is an effort to white wash the president as anti-war. Keep in mind that Obama is not anti-war and would (just like the majority of the Republican Presidential candidates) pull us into a war with Iran after the elections. Don't believe me? Google news search for "bunker buster iran".

                      [–]UhOhPoopedIt 5 points6 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      False equivalence.

                      [–]K21B21 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Yes, because President Barack Obama did not just end a ten year war with Iraq and is his second term (which is almost definite) will probably end the war with Afghanistan. Plus, it's not like every single republican presidential candidate besides Ron Paul has pledged that if they get elected, they will start a war with Iran. Makes total sense that the current president is a war-monger.

                      [–]respectedfoot 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Based on a treaty signed by Bush. Just ignore the fact that Obama was unable to secure legal immunity for US soilders so he could continue the war. Also more drones in Packistan. But hes a democrate so that must mean he's the peace candidate right?

                      [–]lbsubstylee 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      I totally agree with you that Obama has not been ANTI-WAR or anti-foreign relations as say a Ron Paul, but just imagine if John McCain was in office right now... we would be bombing Syria, Iran, and Pakistan.... right about NOW. Lesser of the two evils?

                      [–]lolquetaco 4 points5 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

                      [–]lbsubstylee 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      and what is NOT voting?

                      [–]xl1sbrett 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Boots on the ground in Libya, and several other countries in Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and soon Iran... How do you this president is different than a republican. Only difference is that he isn't stupid enough to sound like a war monger.

                      [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Because he was totally opposed to the NDAA... you know... after he signed it.

                      [–]K21B21 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      You could make the argument that we have boots on the ground in Germany, France, and Russia. Doesn't mean that we're in a war with them.

                      [–]BitchinIndika 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      They have been sexually repressed warmongers for decades.

                      [–]Amajortritone 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      It's true that Obama has left "all options" on the table, but the part of me that hasn't been totally scarred by the BS politics has become in the past decade would like to think that he truly means it to be a method of last resort. Not holding my breath though....

                      [–]Vik1ng 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Because it would be the republicans job to call him out for this. That's the whole point of having different parties. But when you just have to parties like the US and the republicans argue about religion 24/7 the other party gets a free ride.

                      [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Two party system: both send us to perpetual war and steal our liberty; bitch about stupid shit like birth control and religion to keep the populace divided.

                      [–]fuzzynyanko 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      It's like they want Sharia Law, even though they speak against it.

                      [–]bjarkebjarke 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      I've never fully understood this two-party system. People should vote for an alternative, because - well, face it: either way you vote, there's so much bureaucracy behind it all, so much power of the congress.. I mean, isn't it all pretty much.. Pointless?

                      This, however, comes from a european in a country where we have about +13 serious parties. The spand is just much creater, from (pretty much) red-green/communism on the left, and nationalistic(not quite Hitler, but getting there) on the right.

                      [–]jamesodba 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      no matter how awful and stupid the republicans seem/are 40% will still vote for them anyway. The average IQ is 100, half of all people are below average.

                      [–]Elfshadowx 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      You know that means lots of stupid people are voting for democrats right?

                      [–]reddit_user13 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Coincidence?

                      [–]hansn 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      I live in Maricopa county, Arizona, home of Joe Arpaio. He is somewhat of an icon among conservatives, presenting himself as a "no-nonsense" sheriff who just "enforces the law." In reality, he tries to arrest people who run against him, judges who rule against him, lawyers who take cases against him, elected officials who speak out against him, and anyone else who seems to be keeping him from total power.

                      I worry a bit about people who hold him up as a conservative ideal, without researching his positions and record. However I am absolutely floored by the people in Arizona who are aware of his record, and believe he's the future of conservatism. It is absolutely scary.

                      [–]Chronoallusion 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      agreed

                      [–]earthmane 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Absolutely agreed. The global situation is no longer one in which the Republican/Conservative worldview makes sense.

                      [–]tamrix 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Does anyone even care about America anymore?

                      I thought we all gave up because fighting back seams hopeless now.

                      [–]Indon_Dasani 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Well, it is, but normally those policies are pressured onto our satellite states rather than us.

                      I think around the 70's they realized that they could just treat their own people like the people of another satellite state and turn us into a proper banana republic, the same kind of profitable gig they had going all around the world already.

                      [–]ventian 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Obama had two years to get shit straight in this country. He blew those years as far as I am concerned. After that, he became a lame duck president. I will always know him as the president who delivered everything but hope and change. His policies aren't radically different from Bush's. I am completely convinced that the two party system is in place to keep everyone believing in Democracy. The Republicans won't die, I assure you. Republicans and Democrats will be switching turns for years to come. Ask Dennis Kucinich all about it.

                      [–]nightymelon 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Sounds like it.

                      Yup, totally.

                      [–]orchitis 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Ideology is never good to have in office, conservative, progressive or libertarian. Since they don't judge anything off of facts or reality just want they want to become reality. Minimum wage is according to laws of supply and demand a harmful law and yet its still a law. Then you have the ban on gay marriage which is none of governments business. Then you have libertarians calling for the end of the FED which would be complete financial disaster, given they aren't perfect, but the best we have had yet.

                      [–]darkside569 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Phrase of the day: "If you can't beat em, join em."

                      [–]Anticipator1234 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Close. The Republican Party is acting like a second/third grader.

                      [–]TheEvilScotsman 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      I think you meant 'hyperbolic' rather than 'parabolic'. Normally I wouldn't comment on such a pointless detail but this one actually does affect meaning. One is over-estimation and the other is a type of graph.

                      On your actual post though, fantastic job. I love the style of the entire thing, you could cross-post thsi quite readily to circlejerk with no change.

                      [–]Ol_Lefteye[S] 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Literally parabolic

                      [–]yep45 0 points1 point ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      yeah guys! Republicans are evil and LITERALLY HITLER, can I have upvotes now?

                      [–]Ol_Lefteye[S] 1 point2 points ago

                      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                      Upvoted for truth and bravery.

                      load more comments (1 reply)

                        [–]scifigirl 2 points3 points ago

                        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                        This. But they don't get it. And that's why it wouldn't surprise me to see the Republican party cease to be within the next few decades. They've so sullied the brand now, that it would take a gargantuan effort to salvage it. I think a lot of middle-of-the-road conservatives might simply decide that it's easier to let the far right have the Republican name and start over with something else. Although it will probably take losing elections over and over to get that through their heads. Luckily, it looks like that's a good bet for November.

                        [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                        Because the pro-war, pro-corporation democrats are really helping their cause?

                        Although it will probably take losing elections over and over

                        Yeah, except... 2010 elections...

                        [–]scifigirl 0 points1 point ago

                        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                        I think (okay, I hope) that a lot of the people who voted in teaparty candidates have had their fill of them by now. They haven't done a damned thing except be obstructionist.

                        [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                        What is it that you think government should be "doing", exactly? You're incorrect about people "having their fill" of tea party candidates. The tea-party idea or movement or whatever you want to call it lasted about a month and now that it's actually election season "republicans" are just back to supporting the same old asshole neo-cons.

                        [–]scifigirl 0 points1 point ago

                        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                        Oh, sorry. Didn't know you knew every freaking teaparty voter in the entire US. Must be nice to be able to speak for so many people. Actually, a lot of voters where I live are getting damned tired of the idiots they elected. I only hope that attitude lasts through Nov.

                        And where does all the hostility come from sweetness? Having a bad day? It is possible to disagree with a person without being a dick, you know. But to make it easy for you to hate me, let me spell it out: what would I like to see the govt. doing? Electing a fucking socialist for a change. Bernie Sanders, for instance, would be awesome with extra awesome sauce. But it isn't going to happen, so I will settle for hoping that the idiots the tea party or the Republicans (or whatever word you'd like to use for them, darling) have in office manage to be voted out in droves.

                        [–]EricWRN 0 points1 point ago

                        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                        Eh, at least you're honest about your agenda. I'll give you credit for that as opposed to the average american democrat on reddit. Not sure where you're getting hostility from either. And I'm speaking for them because I always thought the "tea party" movement was a good idea in theory, I just knew it would never get traction because Americans aren't informed or principled enough and the whole movement would just get co-opted by the same old neo-cons. So I believe I probably have more insight into why people became so jaded with the idea than someone who doesn't like it under any circumstances.

                        I'm not sure why leftists hate the "tea party" so much though (as opposed to the neo-cons). I guess it's because the "tea party" movement was about small government and neo-cons are for at least for a large government? The large government the neo-cons want is awful. At least libertarians or "tea partiers" want a small government and liberty (i.e. not telling you how to live). I've always thought liberals and libertarians were more closely aligned than liberals and republicans and my impression is that the whole "tea party" hating thing is really just politicking because it just comes down to democrat vs. republican in most people's minds (disregarding principle and substance).

                        load more comments (34 replies)