|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th November 2009, 09:22 PM | #1 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!
Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates
Quote:
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
24th November 2009, 09:30 PM | #2 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 19th Century Kansas
Posts: 1,070
|
According to the book Idiot America that's how McCain ended up with Palin. She passed those tests with flying colors.
|
24th November 2009, 09:31 PM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
Is it too early to Godwin the thread?
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
24th November 2009, 09:39 PM | #4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
|
You know who else insisted on ideological purity tests?
Nazis. That's who. Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though. |
24th November 2009, 09:43 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
Given that the most far-right Republicans have had their heads handed to them when they run against a rational Democrat, I don't think hard right turns are a good idearight now, so I do encourage them to crank that sucker right and over the curb.
|
24th November 2009, 09:46 PM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:
Quote:
This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools. |
24th November 2009, 09:52 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
|
Newsflash.
Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing. Said political organization's politics do not actually fit the other side's political organization's politics. Other side's politicians are shocked, SHOCKED. |
24th November 2009, 09:53 PM | #8 |
Briefly immortal
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,587
|
This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"
But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections. |
24th November 2009, 10:02 PM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
24th November 2009, 10:04 PM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
Lets visit point 1, as regards smaller national debt and smaller deficits.
Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest? |
24th November 2009, 10:10 PM | #11 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 869
|
There goes my shot at the Presidency...
What is interesting is that some Democrats would pass this test. |
24th November 2009, 10:22 PM | #12 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
|
24th November 2009, 11:01 PM | #13 |
Scholar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 123
|
yes but...
|
24th November 2009, 11:24 PM | #14 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
Let joy be unconfined.
|
25th November 2009, 12:07 AM | #15 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,795
|
Are any of those a principle rather than a current issue, except no. 4? A couple of them strikes me as somewhat non sequitor too -- what's the link between "containment" and "action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat" and how does "opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" help "support legal immigration and assimilation"?
On a general note, ideological "purity tests" are stupid. The world keeps changing, after all. |
__________________
"Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005 |
|
25th November 2009, 12:13 AM | #16 |
Straussian
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
|
Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign. If anything this makes their process more transparent because the party label will actually mean something. The genuine fraud comes arises when we discuss what "true" conservatives actually end up doing -- growing government, beginning wars they cannot finance, running up the deficit (see hgc's post).
Republican politics are more ideological whereas Democrats are more transactional (look at the astonishing goodies demanded by your precious "moderates" for the health care bill). If anything the Democrats should be more like the Republicans rather than vice versa (not terms of policy positions, obviously, but when it comes party discipline). Force Democrats to get a political theory. Assign Theory of Justice and conduct seminars. |
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo. Diablo: What's that supposed to mean? Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value. |
|
25th November 2009, 12:17 AM | #17 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,795
|
|
__________________
"Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005 |
|
25th November 2009, 12:33 AM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
|
|
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." |
|
25th November 2009, 12:47 AM | #19 |
Straussian
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
|
Why do you make a distinction for a "modern" political party? Is this to guard against a historical argument for a party that has one core issue, such as ending slavery? Political parties should not welcome everyone with open arms. As for these ten points -- well, they're shoddy at best. The first one is arguably inconsistent (and unarguably poorly worded, not unlike this parenthetical note). The third one is amusing: they "support market-based reforms by opposing cap and trade..." That just doesn't follow; indeed, it could arguably make more sense if it read "We encourage market-based reforms by supporting cap and trade legislation." But whatever; these things are usually written by idiots, and the people behind this list of ten are Republicans, and its done via committee, so that's three marks against their intelligence.
|
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo. Diablo: What's that supposed to mean? Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value. |
|
25th November 2009, 01:02 AM | #20 |
Seasonally Disaffected
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,314
|
From: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - just after General Ripper launches a nuclear strike.
Quote:
Hmmm. PS: Purity of Essence - POE - was the recall code. It didn't work. |
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder. "It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels I hate bigots. |
|
25th November 2009, 05:25 AM | #21 |
Creativity Murderer
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,958
|
Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.
|
__________________
Don't mind me. |
|
25th November 2009, 05:27 AM | #22 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
25th November 2009, 05:55 AM | #23 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
25th November 2009, 06:00 AM | #24 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
Nice to see that they have things that are incompatable on there. I think 2 and 9 don't really go together. If they want a truely free market for health care then you can't go arround forcing people to treat the indigent for no pay as they want in 9.
But I am not really suprised. America should sue the party for contract violation from the last time. |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
25th November 2009, 06:12 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
|
|
25th November 2009, 06:28 AM | #26 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
25th November 2009, 06:44 AM | #27 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
25th November 2009, 07:01 AM | #28 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
25th November 2009, 07:59 AM | #29 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
|
Am I the only one who is disturbed by this one?
Quote:
|
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post |
|
25th November 2009, 08:02 AM | #30 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
|
[quote}(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; [/quote]
Yeah, Let's repeal restricitons on automatic weapons. I really want to go out and buy a 1921 model Thompson Sub Machine Gun. with a 50 round drum magazine. |
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post |
|
25th November 2009, 08:11 AM | #31 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
For that matter, would any of them call for entitlement and military cuts needed to simultaneously lower taxes, lower debt, and shrink government? That's not something you can do by simply opposing the stimulus bill, especially since the stimulus included tax cuts. And of course, how do you manage that while sending more troops overseas and doing nothing to change medical entitlements?
Frankly, the list is just a collection of talking points. "Stop taking my money!", "Victory in Iraq!", "Hands off my Medicare!", "Guns! Guns!", "What about the babies!?" "Send the illegals back where they came from!", "Gays want to ruin marriage!" No wonder they end up messing things up, they have no actual plan in the first place. |
25th November 2009, 08:25 AM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
But this is simply wrong.
"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, which is where candidates are nominated and run. In a strongly "blue" area, you may not be able to find ANY electable candidate that will support all ten -- or even eight of the ten -- planks on that particular purity test. Even if that's the case, you'd be better off finding an electable candidate who supports six of them than insisting that the Republicans must run a candidate who can't help but lose to a zero of ten McGovern Democrat. If you do that, you end up with support for NONE of your ideas in congress, instead of only some of them. This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best. |
25th November 2009, 08:58 AM | #33 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
|
I actually like the idea of the purity test. Republicans should be Republicans, instead of forcing people like Doug Hoffman to run an underfunded third party campaign in lieu of pouring 900,000 dollars into uber-RINO Scozzafava's pockets.
Seriously, people like Scozzafava should be independents. Full stop. |
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill |
|
25th November 2009, 09:12 AM | #34 |
King of the Pod People
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,628
|
The difference is that in most democracies there is at least a semblance of a multi-party system. There are at least four parties represented in the Australian parliament, IIRC. The United States has a two-party system, almost by law; ballot access laws and bureacratic state structural requirements make it prohibitively difficult for a third party to make any sort of national showing.
The result of this is that the two main parties are much more ideologically broad than those in multi-party systems; the Democrats have everything from conservatives (Zell Miller) to socialists (DSA), and the Republicans run the gamut from libertarians (Ron Paul) to virtual theocrats (Focus-on-the-Family types). If one party starts applying a purity test, those who don't agree with every bullet point will start defecting to the one that doesn't. If both parties start applying a litmus test, it effectively disenfranchises everyone who doesn't toe one party line or the other. |
25th November 2009, 09:23 AM | #35 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
|
so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?
nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom. Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues?????? I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq. let the Godwining begin!!!!! |
25th November 2009, 09:34 AM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
|
Are you really this upset that 5% of the RNC National Committee is proposing to restrict funding to members of their party who support less than 80% of the national platform? Please excuse the Tu Quoque, but what's your stance on Joe Lieberman again? Didn't you call him a traitor and evil for stating that he would try to block the public-health-insurance-company option? |
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein |
|
25th November 2009, 09:35 AM | #37 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
|
Originally Posted by parky76
|
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill |
|
25th November 2009, 09:35 AM | #38 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.
|
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
25th November 2009, 09:41 AM | #39 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,974
|
|
__________________
"As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" |
|
25th November 2009, 09:46 AM | #40 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|