PDA

View Full Version : Elections Have Consequences


Davian93
12-02-2014, 07:55 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/james-inhofe-barbra-streisand-climate-change-hoax

This idiot is now the Majority Chairperson of the Senate Committee on the Environment.

He's a climate-change denier who is also a young earth Creationist...no way this goes bad.

Maybe people should get out and vote in midterms, eh?

BTW, the reason he doesn't believe in climate change you ask? Because the Bible says otherwise.

Nazbaque
12-02-2014, 09:56 PM
Well he might badmouth hollywood so much that they will start making better movies.

They could make one about a 2000 year old conspiracy theory the Vatican cooked up.

Kimon
12-02-2014, 09:58 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/james-inhofe-barbra-streisand-climate-change-hoax

This idiot is now the Majority Chairperson of the Senate Committee on the Environment.

He's a climate-change denier who is also a young earth Creationist...no way this goes bad.

Maybe people should get out and vote in midterms, eh?

BTW, the reason he doesn't believe in climate change you ask? Because the Bible says otherwise.

Well it's not like they're all idiots, some of them are just greedy and evil.

Like the Koch Brothers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html

Or Florida - probably a mix of greedy and stupid...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/01/1348632/-If-only-the-Sunshine-state-s-rulings-on-solar-and-energy-efficiency-could-be-chalked-up-to-ignorance

Kimon
12-02-2014, 10:29 PM
Well he might badmouth hollywood so much that they will start making better movies.

They could make one about a 2000 year old conspiracy theory the Vatican cooked up.

That movie has already been made, albeit not by Hollywood...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Frenzy
12-03-2014, 12:28 AM
This idiot is now the Majority Chairperson of the Senate Committee on the Environment.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1332274453968_6358909.png

GonzoTheGreat
12-03-2014, 05:37 AM
Don't worry, your Representatives are going to solve your problems (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/epa-barred-getting-advice-scientists).

Nazbaque
12-03-2014, 06:57 AM
Don't worry, your Representatives are going to solve your problems (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/epa-barred-getting-advice-scientists).

Well once the unprofitable clean water and air are removed it's only a matter of time before these gyus choke on their own poisons. Everyone who doesn't want to get caught in the crossfire will have to move away.

suttree
12-03-2014, 12:37 PM
More on what could end up being a good thing in the long run.

Now James Inhofe, one of the biggest idiots in Congress get's to lead the committee that overseas environmental policy. (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jim-inhofe-112757.html?hp=t3_r)

The longtime Oklahoma senator is the Hill’s most flamboyant critic of climate research, denouncing the concept of man-made global warming as a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” Now that he’s about to take charge (https://www.politicopro.com/story/energy/?id=40596) of the committee that oversees environmental policy, Democrats aspire to make Inhofe the face of GOP know-nothingism, while at least one Republican consultant says his style of skepticism could create headaches for candidates up and down the ticket in 2016.

Already, the liberal opposition research group American Bridge plans to monitor Inhofe’s every utterance on climate change, and liberal strategists are planning how to use his chairmanship as political fodder to attack Republicans more broadly in the next election. One Senate Democratic aide called Inhofe’s promotion a “silver lining” to Democrats’ losing the chamber.

“Leave it to today’s GOP to put someone who doesn’t believe in basic science at the helm of the committee that oversees environmental protection,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in an email Monday, putting the party’s private smirking on the record. “It’s unfortunate that Republicans continue to put more stock in their rigid ideology than science and what’s best for the country.”


This is a man who says climate change is impossible because "God is still up there" and it's "refuted by the bible." This is going to be entertaining to say the least.

Nazbaque
12-03-2014, 03:01 PM
Why do Americans always go to war? War on drugs. War on coal. Is there going to be a war on war or a war on stupidity?

Davian93
12-03-2014, 03:23 PM
Why do Americans always go to war? War on drugs. War on coal. Is there going to be a war on war or a war on stupidity?

Its the only thing we know how to do anymore...blame 60 years of the military-industrial complex dictating policy I guess.

One thing we will not ever do is go to war with Finland. Nobody ever comes out of that looking good.

Nazbaque
12-03-2014, 03:30 PM
Its the only thing we know how to do anymore...blame 60 years of the military-industrial complex dictating policy I guess.

One thing we will not ever do is go to war with Finland. Nobody ever comes out of that looking good.

I believe that has something to do with the shape of our country. If you look at Sweden and Finland together they make a certain suggestive shape. Warfare is about balls and since ours are literally the size of a country...

Frenzy
12-03-2014, 10:22 PM
Ok, this is a perfect example of why our 2-party system is seriously fooked up. This asshat being in charge of the nation's environmental policy is equivalent of a house burning down, and the opposition's planning to do is to just point and yell "Fire!!"

GonzoTheGreat
12-04-2014, 05:13 AM
Is there going to be a war on war or a war on stupidity?
Both are prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. The war on war directly, and the war on stupidity implicitly. Which, come to think of it, means that the very politicians who sparked this thread can be blamed on gun culture.

Nazbaque
12-04-2014, 06:38 AM
Both are prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. The war on war directly, and the war on stupidity implicitly. Which, come to think of it, means that the very politicians who sparked this thread can be blamed on gun culture.

Doesn't that just mean that said wars would be unconstitutional? They could still happen.

Terez
12-04-2014, 06:46 AM
Ok, this is a perfect example of why our 2-party system is seriously fooked up. This asshat being in charge of the nation's environmental policy is equivalent of a house burning down, and the opposition's planning to do is to just point and yell "Fire!!"
Should we just shoot him instead? That is the best analogy I can think of for putting out the fire in this case. Of course, there are elections, but that train has left the station for the nonce.

Davian93
12-04-2014, 06:57 AM
Ok, this is a perfect example of why our 2-party system is seriously fooked up. This asshat being in charge of the nation's environmental policy is equivalent of a house burning down, and the opposition's planning to do is to just point and yell "Fire!!"

In his defense, I dont see anything in the Bible about climate change...so he's got a point.


Both sides of an argument deserve equal play regardless of how ridiculous one or the other is...at least that's what our current "news" people think.

GonzoTheGreat
12-04-2014, 08:08 AM
Doesn't that just mean that said wars would be unconstitutional? They could still happen.You misunderstand. War is a protected right for Americans, precisely because of that bit of their Constitution.

In his defense, I dont see anything in the Bible about climate change...so he's got a point.The Bible doesn't mention climate at all, so obviously that's just a figment of the imagination. The most appropriate passage which I could find is the following:
Job|37:22 Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to all those who got 10 foot of snow dumped on them by northerly blizzards.

Both sides of an argument deserve equal play regardless of how ridiculous one or the other is...at least that's what our current "news" people think.In itself that wouldn't be unreasonable, but then they should really point out how ridiculous the arguments of the religious people are. Leaving out that crucial information is where they go wrong.

Nazbaque
12-04-2014, 02:24 PM
You misunderstand. War is a protected right for Americans, precisely because of that bit of their Constitution.

Then the war on war is protected by the constitution, because it is a war?

GonzoTheGreat
12-05-2014, 04:41 AM
Then the war on war is protected by the constitution, because it is a war?
Yes, indeed. Just as the War on Christmas is. Of course, the defenders of war and Christmas have the advantage over their attackers, seeing as how the latter are pacifist atheists (none of whom are ever to be found in foxholes, apparently) while the defenders are homicidal gun nuts. But both sides have Constitutional protection and are thus legally on the same footing.

tworiverswoman
12-05-2014, 06:56 PM
It seems to me that Noah's flood would qualify as a "climate change" event. In which case the Bible EXPLICITLY warns against letting the causes go unchecked.

Of course, the causes weren't emissions etc., but still....

Uno
12-05-2014, 08:03 PM
It seems to me that Noah's flood would qualify as a "climate change" event. In which case the Bible EXPLICITLY warns against letting the causes go unchecked.

Of course, the causes weren't emissions etc., but still....

General wickedness, wasn't it? And greed and avarice are definitely sins, and also--as the motivating factors of industrial capitalism--the roots of global warming.

Kimon
12-05-2014, 09:10 PM
It seems to me that Noah's flood would qualify as a "climate change" event. In which case the Bible EXPLICITLY warns against letting the causes go unchecked.

Of course, the causes weren't emissions etc., but still....

True, but the Bible neither admits that the flood narrative was a naturally occurring event distantly remembered of the rising sea levels at the close of the last ice age, nor that the Jews completely plagiarized the original version of the story during their time in Babylon.

Davian93
12-05-2014, 09:32 PM
Psst....next you'r gonna try and tell us that pretty much every ancient culture had a similar flood story. Stop trying to attack Christianity.

Not gonna happen today...NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!

Frenzy
12-05-2014, 09:54 PM
Should we just shoot him instead? That is the best analogy I can think of for putting out the fire in this case.
Tempting, but no. I don't think we want to backslide to the point of murdering our opponents.
Of course, there are elections, but that train has left the station for the nonce.
I honestly don't know. If the minority party tries to steer the ship, they'll be outvoted out of spite if nothing else. If they try to block any of the insanity, they'll be called obstructionists. If they try to find middle ground, they'll be called cowards or backstabbers. Their safest strategy is to do nothing and point out the majority's failings. Which is straight up cowardly limp-wristed weaksauce bullshite. Hence why our 2-party system is fooked up.

To be honest, i think the best we can hope for is for Inhofe to go on a cocaine-fueled bender and screw an intern or something.

tworiverswoman
12-06-2014, 03:41 AM
One of the webcomics I enjoy has speculated that the next civil war will be, not between the North and the South, but between the Red and the Blue. Which is a very scary thought, because the current level of tolerance for "the other guy's" viewpoint is beyond nil.

Also, there's a suggestion that one side has the majority of the guns....

GonzoTheGreat
12-06-2014, 05:24 AM
It seems to me that Noah's flood would qualify as a "climate change" event. In which case the Bible EXPLICITLY warns against letting the causes go unchecked.Ah yes, but the Bible also says quite explicitly that such a thing won't happen again, thus proving that all those climate worries are unnecessary. At least, as long as God can see rainbows.

One of the webcomics I enjoy has speculated that the next civil war will be, not between the North and the South, but between the Red and the Blue. Which is a very scary thought, because the current level of tolerance for "the other guy's" viewpoint is beyond nil.

Also, there's a suggestion that one side has the majority of the guns....
Right now, the American police is busy with an awareness campaign, to impress on people that they should have real guns instead of toy ones. That does require shooting a bunch of people with toy guns, but it may be worth it in the long run. Or something.

tworiverswoman
12-08-2014, 02:12 PM
Ah yes, but the Bible also says quite explicitly that such a thing won't happen again, thus proving that all those climate worries are unnecessary. I was hoping no one would pick up on that part.

At least, as long as God can see rainbows.Which means the Gay Parades must continue!

Davian93
12-08-2014, 07:51 PM
Ah yes, but the Bible also says quite explicitly that such a thing won't happen again, thus proving that all those climate worries are unnecessary. At least, as long as God can see rainbows.


Right now, the American police is busy with an awareness campaign, to impress on people that they should have real guns instead of toy ones. That does require shooting a bunch of people with toy guns, but it may be worth it in the long run. Or something.

Cop violence in the US is completely overrated...there is an easy series of steps any person can take if they don't want to get shot by a cop:

Step 1: Don't be black.
Step 2: Seriously, don't be black.
Step 3: Did I stutter?

Frenzy
12-08-2014, 10:42 PM
Also, there's a suggestion that one side has the majority of the guns....

At the start of the Civil War, the South had the majority of the guns & trained military leaders. Look how well that turned out for them.

Terez
12-08-2014, 11:36 PM
Also, there's a suggestion that one side has the majority of the guns....
The legal ones anyway.

SauceyBlueConfetti
12-09-2014, 02:11 PM
Also, there's a suggestion that one side has the majority of the guns....


Not being able to cooperate with any human beings who have even an iota of a differing opinion will likely put an end quickly to the gun imbalance. :rolleyes:

The Unreasoner
12-09-2014, 05:13 PM
Stephen Fry thinks the next American civil war will be over water, not party lines. I almost hope he is right.

Nazbaque
12-09-2014, 10:34 PM
Whatever the Americans will fight their civil war over, the Russians will invade when they have weakened themselves enough.

Uno
12-10-2014, 09:44 AM
Ah yes, but the Bible also says quite explicitly that such a thing won't happen again, thus proving that all those climate worries are unnecessary. At least, as long as God can see rainbows.

God promised not to end the world again by water, and there is therefore a very old Christian tradition that the end will come by fire, as in the old African-American verse "God gave Noah the rainbow sign; no more water; fire next time." And we're talking about global warming here.

Nazbaque
12-10-2014, 09:53 AM
So god is going to do it the Dark One way? Does that mean he is a Darkfriend?

Uno
12-10-2014, 09:57 AM
So god is going to do it the Dark One way? Does that mean he is a Darkfriend?

Could be. Old Marcion suggested as much.

GonzoTheGreat
12-10-2014, 10:40 AM
So god is going to do it the Dark One way? Does that mean he is a Darkfriend?
Well, the book of Revelation shows quite clearly that He is opposed to the Lord Dragon, so there's that.

Also, apparently, Job is Galadedrid Damodred:
Job|30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
I'm not quite sure where Galad finds those owls, though.

Uno
12-10-2014, 11:32 AM
Well, the book of Revelation shows quite clearly that He is opposed to the Lord Dragon, so there's that.

Also, apparently, Job is Galadedrid Damodred:
Job|30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
I'm not quite sure where Galad finds those owls, though.

Tricky. Ingtar's sign was a gray owl, and he was a Darkfriend. Verin had an owl in her study, and she was also technically a Darkfriend. In addition, the sigil of House Taravin sports an owl, and Galad and Rand would be related to that house by common descent from Ishara. Fragmentary information, to be sure, but that has never stopped speculation around here before.

GonzoTheGreat
12-10-2014, 11:55 AM
Did Galad ever meet Verin?
I don't think he ever came into contact with Ingtar, unless he was at the DF social.

Nazbaque
12-10-2014, 01:39 PM
What if it was really them who killed Asmodean? Verin, Ingtar and Galad. It's so obvious! Why didn't I see it before?

The Unreasoner
12-10-2014, 02:03 PM
Did Galad ever meet Verin?
I don't think he ever came into contact with Ingtar, unless he was at the DF social.

I think he got a letter from her, didn't he?

Also, even if Russia did invade the US (which-how? By sailing a massive invasion force from Siberia to San Francisco? Marching through Canada?) they could never hold all of it. Even small towns have tanks these days, and there are plenty of wingnuts prepared to fight our own government, with bunkers, stockpiled food, and even training. And lots of guns.

Unless we really do have a new civil war along political lines. A war over water we could come back from. I'm not sure how to reconcile the left and right now, doing so after Dallas and San Francisco are rubble might be impossible.

GonzoTheGreat
12-11-2014, 04:07 AM
They could conquer Alaska. I'm not quite sure why they would want to do so, but then, I don't fully understand Putin anyway.

Ozymandias
12-16-2014, 05:10 PM
They could conquer Alaska. I'm not quite sure why they would want to do so, but then, I don't fully understand Putin anyway.

As of yesterday they can't afford to, anyway

Davian93
12-16-2014, 06:17 PM
As of yesterday they can't afford to, anyway

They could conquer it and then resell it to us for another $7 million...that might help.

Oh wait.

I sure wish Obama could be tough and manly like Putin...why can't we have a real strong leader like Putin? He's led them right off a cliff and destroyed their country and they love him for it. Notice how our right-wing nuts have muffled their glowing admiration for him lately? Especially since their economy has gone all Weimar Republic this week and over the past 6 months thanks to oil plummeting and western sanctions crushing their cash flow.

suttree
01-07-2015, 01:31 PM
Some highlights from day 1.

Do Republicans understand that SSI recipients make up a large portion of their base? (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-on-day-onel-new-congress-launches-attack-on-social-security-20150106-column.html)

As one of its first orders of business upon convening Tuesday, the Republican House of Representatives approved a rule that will seriously undermine efforts to keep all of Social Security solvent.

The rule hampers an otherwise routine reallocation of Social Security payroll tax income from the old-age program to the disability program. Such a reallocation, in either direction, has taken place 11 times since 1968, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But it's especially urgent now, because the disability program's trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year. At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%. Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix.


The procedural rule enacted by the House Republican caucus prohibits the reallocation unless it's accompanied by "benefit cuts or tax increases that improve the solvency of the combined trust funds," as paraphrased by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

In practical terms, the advocacy committee says, that makes the reallocation impossible; it mandates either benefit cuts across the board, which aren't politically palatable, or a payroll tax increase, which isn't palatable to the GOP.


The other doozy was around "dynamic scoring". If you don't like the decades of data showing trickle down doesn't work, simply change how you keep score. The war on math has officially been declared. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/congresss-first-act-was-to-declare-war-on-math.html)


The first substantive act of the new, all-Republican Congress was a telling one: House and Senate leaders, now in partisan accord and able to impose an undiluted partisan imprint upon the institution, struck a blow in their decades-long struggle on behalf of low taxes for the rich and against the bookkeeping standards that have stood in their way. In a rapid vote yesterday, the House directed the Congressional Budget Office to use “dynamic scoring” — a Washington term of art to describe imposing conservative ideology upon the once-neutral task of measuring the budgetary impact of legislation.
The Congressional Budget Office is a 40-year-old institution that has acquired enormous clout within Washington by virtue of its reputation for ideological neutrality. It furnishes Congress and the public with budgetary estimates that, if necessarily imperfect (as all predictions must be), are arrived at fairly. It is also a perfect modern expression of an old Progressive Era–ideal: that policymakers should be informed by the work of impartial experts. That the conservative majority has set out to corrupt this institution as one of its first major acts is, therefore, perfectly fitting...
To understand the stakes of the disagreement, consider the following. In 2012, President Obama was threatening to block any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners, and he made this promise a key point of differentiation between himself and Mitt Romney. The Congressional Budget Office predicted (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-fiscal-cbo-idUSBRE8A71D020121108?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=574655) that the expiration of these tax cuts would have only minor, short-term effects on the economy. Conservatives made far more dire assessments. A study (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ey_study_long-run_macroeconomic_impact_of_increasing_tax_rates_o n_high_income_taxpayers_in_2013__2012_07_16_final. pdf) commissioned by pro-business organizations predicted that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and reduce economic productivity. “This report shows the president's small business tax hike threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, and will lead to even less economic growth, less investment and lower wages for American workers,” warned (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-ticket/study-says-obama-tax-proposals-could-cost-700-145037841.html) John Boehner. “These tax increases will have painful impacts on the economy and job creation,” insisted the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/delaying-obamacare-tax-increases-key-part-of-stopping-taxmageddon). These predictions were the perfectly predictable expression of the conservative worldview, which deems tax rates on “job creators” to be the overriding factor in the success or failure of the economy.\
Almost nothing that has happened in the two years since has made that conservative argument look good. In February 2013 — just after the Bush tax cuts on the highest earners expired — the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf) published a forecast for the budget and the economy over the next several years. The CBO forecast that the unemployment rate would fall to 7.6 percent by the end of 2014. If the conservative analysis was correct, and higher tax rates on job creators were depressing job growth, we might expect the unemployment rate today to be higher than the CBO forecast. Instead it is much lower. Unemployment fell below 6 percent by the third quarter of last year. Indeed, the economy appears to be accelerating into a phase of more rapid growth just at the time conservatives predicted that higher taxes would have the opposite effect. This development has not given Republicans even the slightest pause.,,
“Dynamic scoring” allows the Republican majority to impose its own ideological terms on the process of scoring legislation. Many credible economic forecasters would argue that debt-financed tax cuts actually reduce economic growth, and thereby cost the government more, not less, than their static cost. (For instance, a paper by the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/09%20effects%20income%20tax%20changes%20economic%2 0growth%20gale%20samwick/09_effects_income_tax_changes_economic_growth_gale _samwick.pdf) concludes that the Bush tax cuts slightly reduced economic growth, because the negative impact of higher debt outweighed the positive incentive impact of lower rates.)
Indeed, two decades' worth of experience would point toward the same conclusion. When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rates, conservatives predicted it would trigger another recession. Instead the economy boomed. When George W. Bush reduced the top tax rates, conservatives predicted it would usher in new heights of prosperity. Instead the economy produced a tepid recovery that was itself inflated by a bubble, culminating in a devastating collapse. The current recovery has picked up speed after the Bush tax cuts for the rich expired. These events do not prove that cutting taxes for the rich causes economic decay and that raising them causes growth. They do suggest that tax rates on the rich have, at best, extremely little impact on underlying growth rates. Republicans are enshrining their doctrine into congressional law at a moment when real-world evidence on its behalf is at a low ebb.


The first step was kicking out CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf who was respected on both sides of the aisle. The second was this vote. The CBO has done excellent work over the years. It's a damn shame to see it lose all credibility in this manner.

This quote sums it up:

former Reagan and George H. W. Bush administration official Bruce Bartlett said it best: 'It is not about honest revenue-estimating; it's about using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican ideology into the budget process.

It actually leads us to a fascinating point I've seen brought up around "postmodern conservatism" (http://http//grist.org/pol...T%20David%20Roberts) in which there is a "rejection not only of the facts, but of facts as a concept. He posits that in the new postmodern conservative moment there are no such things as facts, only competing political beliefs."

A case that the Supreme Court just agreed to hear (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-halbig-king) is a crucial turning point in the American conservative movement’s ability to assert that black is white and up is down, David Roberts recently argued in a stream of tweets. The case, sometimes referred to as “Halbig,” is a legal challenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell) to Obamacare. It asserts that, by virtue of what amounts to a typo — one section of the law carelessly refers to “an Exchange established by the State” — health insurance exchanges must be established by states in order to offer premium subsidies, i.e., federally established exchanges can’t offer such subsidies. That is an inversion of what the law’s authors intended. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, Obamacare will be crippled.


David Roberts @drgrist (https://twitter.com/drgrist) Follow (https://twitter.com/drgrist)

Hilarious watching conservatives argue, not only that the card says Moops, but that Moops is the right answer. Postmodernism lives.

Davian93
01-07-2015, 01:50 PM
~shaking head~

Yup, that about sums it all up. Just pathetic. Can't wait to watch 2 more years of this garbage from them now that they've got both Houses of Congress. I also can't wait to watch chickenshit Obama "compromise" with them repeatedly only to have them give nothing back in return.

Nazbaque
01-07-2015, 02:10 PM
So which of the following possibilities do you think will happen:

1) The Republicans see the error of their ways and stop messing with the economy.

2) The majority of their voters abandons the Republican ideas and their votes put an end to the two party system in a way that is quite impossible to predict accurately, though many theories could be postulated.

3) The Second amendment turns on the Republicans and most of them choke on bullets.

4) Half of the population moves out of the United States.

5) Putin takes advantage and World War III begins.

Davian93
01-07-2015, 02:58 PM
1) The Republicans see the error of their ways and stop messing with the economy.

2) The majority of their voters abandons the Republican ideas and their votes put an end to the two party system in a way that is quite impossible to predict accurately, though many theories could be postulated.

Google "Brownback & Kansas" and you will see where those predictions are wrong. He's run the state into the ground with his Rightwing economic strategy, saw it collapsing his economy so he double-downed on it and was reelected in Nov for another 4 years. Sure, the state is collapsing around them and the educational system sucks and businesses are moving away due to the issues but its not his fault...its that evil President and his liberal henchmen.

GonzoTheGreat
01-08-2015, 05:26 AM
It actually leads us to a fascinating point I've seen brought up around "postmodern conservatism" (http://http//grist.org/pol...T%20David%20Roberts) in which there is a "rejection not only of the facts, but of facts as a concept. He posits that in the new postmodern conservative moment there are no such things as facts, only competing political beliefs."That's not new. This was already an issue in the Bush era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community). I don't know whether the previous Bush also subscribed to it, though I suspect that if he had I would know, which if correct means that he didn't.

So which of the following possibilities do you think will happen:
6. None of the above. The Republican voters will simply double down on their faith, feeling that if they believe harder then reality vindicate them, eventually.
The idea that if things get bad enough then the voters will come to their senses has an enormous amount of history against it. Yet people still continue believing in it, proving its own folly, I guess.