Not surprised. Soon the uber unbalanced conservatives can live entirely within heir bubble, only stepping out occasionally to buy stuff from Amazon or argue with everyone else.
I hope the tea party fades soon and that the Republican Party is taken over by sane folks. I vote democratic because they're not shouting bigoted things from the rooftops as much as the republicans. So basically as long as the republican party is like this, democrats get a monopoly and don't have to fix their huge problems.
Yeah. To be honest, I think the lack of power for more than the big two parties in the States is a problem. As long as only 1 or 2 parties have a hold on things, there's a lot of room for abuses. More than two at least mean that competition becomes more necessary than corruption.
The problem is that we'd have to change our voting system to make third parties more mathematically viable without causing the spoiler effect and other issues, and IIRC it's actually baked into the Constitution, so it would require an amendment.
More that First-Past-The-Post voting is baked in, and it mathematically means that if you develop parties, it means it's difficult for a third party to get any real mindshare without either a spoiler effect or supplanting one of the existing two main parties. Especially in the US, where getting a significant majority of people to agree on anything is... obviously problematic.
You'd have to get a third of the country to unite around a third party to achieve a workable equilibrium; not very likely... especially when you consider that neither the Green Party nor the Libertarian Party are the centrist party needed. The Green Party just splits the Democrats and the Libertarian Party splits the Republicans. I guess if you could somehow get both parties to split exactly in half at the same... but that doesn't seem likely, since the Green Party is currently much too weak and impractical to attract the number needed.
And there's the other rub, I guess. Third Parties might help out disenfranchised right-wingers since the Libertarian Party is halfway competent, but leftists are still out to dry because the Green Party is nigh useless.
Which brings me right back to my comment about the image problem. Part of the reason why the US keeps creeping right is because even though the views of the populace actually skew to the left, the left has often had a very bad image problem. And the entire reason why the left is gaining any ground now is because the conservative PR campaign is finally starting to crash and burn more often while the Dems have really stepped up their image selling. Problem is, the Greens are still in the "ideology matters more than image" segment of the left, while the Libertarians are slowly making inroads on picking up the conservative PR baton.
As near as I can tell, the left in other countries are less... dumb, basically. Like, when the anti-copyright people want to be heard, they don't piss around downloading blockbuster movies and being counter-culture, they actually form an organization and take steps to get people elected into office who'll represent them.
And when the populist people want to be heard, they don't sit around in parks shouting slogans, they form an organization and get people elected into office. I'm looking at Iceland and France and such, where the people who were pissed off about austerity and coddling bankers actually got their shit together and did something actionable about it by putting in bills against the bankers and by electing anti-austerity people.
And when... oh hell, it's always the same pattern. In other countries, the reaction of the left seems to be, "let's get our shit together and nominate people and bills and vote for them and do PR campaigns to get everyone else to vote for them". Here in the US, the reaction of the left often seems to be, "let's piss around outside the system and barely do a single actual political thing to get any people elected or bills passed and tell any would-be allies in the public to piss off if they don't agree 100% with us."
We have 300 million people in this country. You're telling me that if any movement made serious inroads in courting everyone remotely left-minded into writing letters, making phone calls, voting a certain way, etc., that we couldn't muster a big enough outcry to pour the heat on? But so many on the left are either too apathetic to vote, or make excuses to piddle around in every way other than carrying their voice to Congress and the House and the President. And the few practical folks who do the latter don't get enough support to work as a result.
Like climate change. Only a few hundred people at the White House protesting the KXL line? Surely there's more supporters than that. And why are lone homesteaders out there trying to defend their property and water versus crowds blockading the route? Why is there no mass of letters to their Senators and Representatives? Why no mass movement to vote out people who support KXL and vote in those who don't? I mean, hell, you can even get conservatives in on this, as you'd think that even if you can't sell them on fighting climate change, you can sell them on not letting the government allow companies to seize private property for the pipeline.
And that's just one issue. There's 300 million people in this country. It shouldn't be so difficult to muster more than a tiny handful of supporters. Back in the 1920s and 30s you can read some accounts of almost entire cities massing out to protest social and economic injustices in ways that make Occupy look like a knitting circle, despite there being a lot fewer people back then. What happened to the left being able to muster that support? It's certainly not because people don't agree, because poll after poll after poll suggests that yes, people in the US actually often do agree with leftist ideals in anywhere from slight to overwhelming majorities. Yet that support isn't being mobilized in any real way much of the time. Something is very wrong here.
The problem is that most of the older means of informing people are right-wing owned in the states, and the internet is inherently an extremely divided place. It's very hard to get the same message out across multiple websites, never mind expect people to actually listen.
The Tea party is a reaction to democrats abusing power much as OWS is a reaction to the republicans abusing power. The difference is that the Tea party is a respectable group of peaceful protestors, and OWS is a bunch of foolish arsonists. [link]
Abortion has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with morality. That being said it is an idiotic debate that has been blown way out of proportion by the media. The only people who care are feminazis and the religious right who no one takes seriously. Besides, I like abortion, I think your parents should have gotten one.
Oh come on. Are you really telling me that reverting back to Inquistion-era schooling, human rights, and political structure isn't a hilariously evil thing to be interested in? To tout slavery as an American dream?
The fact that these guys can't bring themselves to re-evaluate their beliefs despite most of the world trying to discuss these matters with them is reason enough for me to deride them; the fact that they're isolating themselves into their own little world so that they don't have to face the fire affirms their cowardice, and earns them my mockery.
Also, I haven't seen Tea Party literature; my observations are largely based on observation of the groups members and on the bills proposed by far right-wing senators, who the Tea Party seem to support.
I have to say I agree with him. Now if there was a liberal/left-wing community online, and a tea party member posted that same phrase about it as a post, wouldn't you be tearing into them as hateful bigots?
Ok, I misread your original post. I thought the beliefs were what you were poking at, not the isolation. I agree that attacking the left from their own community is cowardly, but really-isn't that really just an online community for conservatives, as much as dA is an online community for artists?