So I've noticed some of my (former) friends (for decades) don't actually have a life outside of their politics - at least from what I can determine off of Facebook. Now I am taking the Finance course on Coursera. Great course I might add. So I go to the Forum to see what the conversations are about and one idiot is complaining about a reference the instructor made about the power of compounding being wonderful so one can invest some money and get a gain off it without doing anything as being unfair and abusive. What a knuckle head! The instructor was just trying to make a simple point and some idiot takes it into the political realm. Do some people not have much going on in their lives?

Based on your other posts tonight, you don't seem to really want to avoid politics. So let me ask a question - analytical, rather than ideological. In at least two TX Republican races I know about today - US Senate and State Senate 25 - the insurgent "tea partier" trounced the supposed establishment candidate. The latter were accused of crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats. The winners will also, of course, win in November. Is this a temporary triumph for the tea partiers, or is this for the long haul? (I guess a related question is: Once they're in office, will these two legislate much differently than the losers would have?)

(07-31-2012 11:51 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  Based on your other posts tonight, you don't seem to really want to avoid politics. So let me ask a question - analytical, rather than ideological. In at least two TX Republican races I know about today - US Senate and State Senate 25 - the insurgent "tea partier" trounced the supposed establishment candidate. The latter were accused of crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats. The winners will also, of course, win in November. Is this a temporary triumph for the tea partiers, or is this for the long haul? (I guess a related question is: Once they're in office, will these two legislate much differently than the losers would have?)

Well I came to The Quad to "vent" about my friends, with whom I can have no continuing friendship because they don't ever discuss anything but political topics on which we disagree, and they don't allow friendly disagreement over there. So...

But I really cannot anwer your question. I don't know anything about Mr. Cruz but what I have seen from Dewhurst's ads. Last time I voted for Dewhurst. I was sort of 6 of the one and half a dozen of the other this time. We shall see. What I hope is that what Mr. Cruz does in his term is what they both promised to do.

(08-01-2012 09:27 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  Well I came to The Quad to "vent" about my friends, with whom I can have no continuing friendship because they don't ever discuss anything but political topics on which we disagree, and they don't allow friendly disagreement over there. So...

It took me about two months on Facebook to come to the firm conclusion that I should just avoid the politics.

(08-02-2012 11:45 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 09:27 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  Well I came to The Quad to "vent" about my friends, with whom I can have no continuing friendship because they don't ever discuss anything but political topics on which we disagree, and they don't allow friendly disagreement over there. So...

It took me about two months on Facebook to come to the firm conclusion that I should just avoid the politics.

I have a pretty firm no-politics rule for myself on facebook. I'll 'like' someone's post now and then, but I never make political posts and rarely respond to them, and usually regret it if I do.

But to weatherford's original post, yes some people are really all politics all the time. I used to be a poli sci grad student, so I have some of that in me, but thank god I got over it!

I also think the phenomenon of increasingly politically homogenized communities has that affect. If you live in central/south Austin as I do, everyone's a liberal of some sort it seems and people get so used to it that they just assume it. I know liberals who live in the Austin exurbs though that say they have to keep their mouth shut quite often because they are the only non-conservatives in their area. I'm sure conservatives have the same experience in central Austin. And probably there is more diversity in both places than people realize - maybe a solid 60-40 split is enough to give people the impression it's 95-5, because the 40 decides to keep their mouth shut. Or only the most strident loudmouth of the 40 speaks out, thus confirming the biases of the 60...

I take part in political discussions both here (including the spin room and the Memphis political-religious section) and on facebook. I prefer discussing issues with those who disagree, as I think I learn more and it also helps confirm or modify my views. And living in the "most republican county in the US" you don't get a lot of diversity of viewpoints locally. It may not be 95-5, but it sure feels like it, and I do think it's well more than 60-40. I'd guess 75-25 if I had to.

I find it a bit odd that SA self-describes his question as "analytical, rather than ideological," but then prefaces it with mention of "crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats." But I think it's a valid question nevertheless, so here's my take.

I don't think anyone from either party will legislate much differently, because I think the vast majority in both parties are so wedded to their status quo that no sea change is possible. To me, the real indicator was that this time last year we were facing a fiscal crisis (and how real it may have been is debatable, but it certainly appeared real), and two separate bipartisan groups (Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin) had come up with proposed solutions that differed in detail but took essentially the same path (the only possible one IMO), and NEITHER party could even get to first base with either one. That told me that it's way more about power and ideology than about doing the right thing. That's pretty much when I made my break with the TEA Party because that's when it became apparent to me that it had been hijacked by the republican mainstream and had abandoned fiscal responsibility as its primary focus.

ill take a different tack.... also a poli sci grad

I believe that too many, and often the most vocal, only have a superficial understanding of most of the issues upon which they seem to have very strong opinions. This is why so many discussions so quickly turn into name-calling and characterizations so out of touch with reality as to be almost comical... Bush murdered people, Obama is a Nazi... It's also why political TV has become so irritating. I realized quickly that the masses just love to live in an excho chamber and hear their favorite slogans, and those who dissent are so angry at the irrationality that they make good fodder for the show. It is, afterall, all about ratings and not facts. Even with News. The liberal/conservative talk show host LOVES to say things that will irritate the living hell out of the casual conservative/liberal viewer wh just stopped over to see what the fuss was about... and now the show, or its host becomes a topic in and of itself

We don't get the best candidates because the scrutiny of ones private life on issues unrelated to politics or job performance is way too invasive to attract "the best"... and then we as voters are way too easily swayed by things that really don't matter... Potato(e). Third parties don't win, and probably never will until the voters stand up... but that takes leadership, and leadership takes money, and the two parties control all of the money.

I think most of the vocal and activist politics is driven by the right and left extreme. This is amplified by the phenomenon of the Internet and being able to easily pick what " news" one watches on TV... To match your political view. Hence the "echo chamber" effect that was referenced in one of the previous posts.
I truly believe that a large portion of the electorate is truly independent and is slowly becoming a bit disenchanted with extremist views..from either side.
I may have to quibble a bit with Owl 69/70/75's comment that he lives in the most Republican county in Texas. If my home county (Midland) is not the most Republican in Texas, it misses the title by a tiny margin. And it's Republican in the most extreme. I moved here as a moderate Republican, which made me a Socialist. Now, in my golden years, I've become an Independent and most people out here think I'm a Communist.

(08-02-2012 03:34 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I think most of the vocal and activist politics is driven by the right and left extreme. This is amplified by the phenomenon of the Internet and being able to easily pick what " news" one watches on TV... To match your political view. Hence the "echo chamber" effect that was referenced in one of the previous posts.
I truly believe that a large portion of the electorate is truly independent and is slowly becoming a bit disenchanted with extremist views..from either side.
I may have to quibble a bit with Owl 69/70/75's comment that he lives in the most Republican county in Texas. If my home county (Midland) is not the most Republican in Texas, it misses the title by a tiny margin. And it's Republican in the most extreme. I moved here as a moderate Republican, which made me a Socialist. Now, in my golden years, I've become an Independent and most people out here think I'm a Communist.

Montgomery County was statistically the most republican county in the US during the Bush years. It cast a higher percentage of total votes for republicans in whatever races were monitored that any other county in the US. We're about half nouveau riche moved up from Houston to the exurbs who don't want to pay any taxes, and half anarchists straight out of Deliverance who don't want any government, period.

I do agree with the part about becoming disenchanted with extremist views. The clincher for me was the refusal of either party--and really of any significant person in either party--to look seriously at either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin during the debt/deficit debate last year. What that said to me was that both sides were putting ideology over country.

(08-02-2012 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 03:34 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I think most of the vocal and activist politics is driven by the right and left extreme. This is amplified by the phenomenon of the Internet and being able to easily pick what " news" one watches on TV... To match your political view. Hence the "echo chamber" effect that was referenced in one of the previous posts.
I truly believe that a large portion of the electorate is truly independent and is slowly becoming a bit disenchanted with extremist views..from either side.
I may have to quibble a bit with Owl 69/70/75's comment that he lives in the most Republican county in Texas. If my home county (Midland) is not the most Republican in Texas, it misses the title by a tiny margin. And it's Republican in the most extreme. I moved here as a moderate Republican, which made me a Socialist. Now, in my golden years, I've become an Independent and most people out here think I'm a Communist.

Montgomery County was statistically the most republican county in the US during the Bush years. It cast a higher percentage of total votes for republicans in whatever races were monitored that any other county in the US. We're about half nouveau riche moved up from Houston to the exurbs who don't want to pay any taxes, and half anarchists straight out of Deliverance who don't want any government, period.

I do agree with the part about becoming disenchanted with extremist views. The clincher for me was the refusal of either party--and really of any significant person in either party--to look seriously at either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin during the debt/deficit debate last year. What that said to me was that both sides were putting ideology over country.

+100
I feel exactly the same way.

(08-02-2012 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it a bit odd that SA self-describes his question as "analytical, rather than ideological," but then prefaces it with mention of "crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats." But I think it's a valid question nevertheless, so here's my take.

Guilty as charged...should have worded that differently. But that kind of "accusation" was thrown around in these races, and I mentioned it to emphasize why I am wondering if these new folks will legislate differently.

(08-02-2012 05:44 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it a bit odd that SA self-describes his question as "analytical, rather than ideological," but then prefaces it with mention of "crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats." But I think it's a valid question nevertheless, so here's my take.

Guilty as charged...should have worded that differently. But that kind of "accusation" was thrown around in these races, and I mentioned it to emphasize why I am wondering if these new folks will legislate differently.

I'm not really familiar with S25 but I followed the senate race pretty closely and I really didn't hear this. But the same words can fall differently on different ears, and you and I obviously have differing viewpoints.

(08-02-2012 06:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 05:44 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it a bit odd that SA self-describes his question as "analytical, rather than ideological," but then prefaces it with mention of "crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats." But I think it's a valid question nevertheless, so here's my take.

Guilty as charged...should have worded that differently. But that kind of "accusation" was thrown around in these races, and I mentioned it to emphasize why I am wondering if these new folks will legislate differently.

I'm not really familiar with S25 but I followed the senate race pretty closely and I really didn't hear this. But the same words can fall differently on different ears, and you and I obviously have differing viewpoints.

I don't really think it's a question of viewpoint. Stories about the Senate race repeatedly referred to this kind of talk from the Cruz campaign and its supporters. And from the horse's mouth:

http://www.tedcruz.org/facts/record/

http://tpr.org/texasmatters/2012/07/txm120727.html
(quote halfway down)

I'm not saying Cruz shouldn't say these things or that they're wrong. I'm just saying that it was certainly a theme of his campaign.

(08-02-2012 11:40 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 06:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 05:44 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2012 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it a bit odd that SA self-describes his question as "analytical, rather than ideological," but then prefaces it with mention of "crimes such as willingness to work with Democrats." But I think it's a valid question nevertheless, so here's my take.

Guilty as charged...should have worded that differently. But that kind of "accusation" was thrown around in these races, and I mentioned it to emphasize why I am wondering if these new folks will legislate differently.

I'm not really familiar with S25 but I followed the senate race pretty closely and I really didn't hear this. But the same words can fall differently on different ears, and you and I obviously have differing viewpoints.

I don't really think it's a question of viewpoint. Stories about the Senate race repeatedly referred to this kind of talk from the Cruz campaign and its supporters. And from the horse's mouth:

http://www.tedcruz.org/facts/record/

http://tpr.org/texasmatters/2012/07/txm120727.html
(quote halfway down)

I'm not saying Cruz shouldn't say these things or that they're wrong. I'm just saying that it was certainly a theme of his campaign.

After reading those two references, I am not sure if the problem (crime?) was that he compromised with Democrats or that he was a RINO. I suspect the latter.

I tend to agree with OO. I think it's a matter of perspective.

Getting back to my two questions....

Long- or short-term trend? Beats me.

Will they legislate very differently than their opponents? Campbell, maybe. Cruz, I doubt it.

(08-03-2012 07:26 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  Getting back to my two questions....

Long- or short-term trend? Beats me.

Will they legislate very differently than their opponents? Campbell, maybe. Cruz, I doubt it.

I'm a big fan of George Will. His analysis last week ( sorry, I don't have the link) was that in the Senate, Cruz and Dewhurst would've voted identically 99.5% of the time. I think he's probably right.
My take on that election tends to agree with the AP article out of Austin this morning pointing out that Cruz's outsiders (Palin, DeMint, Beck, et al) trumped Dewhurst's in-state endorsements. Sort of a modern and political twist on the famous Texas saying, "Come and take it!".

One thing I have observed in these discussion I have had with my liberal friends about politics: We don't speak the same language at all on these matters. We use the same words, but they mean different things, sometime dramatically different. So we are talking past each other.

(08-03-2012 01:28 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  One thing I have observed in these discussion I have had with my liberal friends about politics: We don't speak the same language at all on these matters. We use the same words, but they mean different things, sometime dramatically different. So we are talking past each other.

Sigh, I know. I have the same experience with my conservative friends.

For what it's worth, I was at Burger King yesterday for lunch. As I was walking to the counter, I heard a man on his cell phone say, "Well, that's the liberal agenda." I can only imagine the conversation he was having.

(08-03-2012 02:57 PM)JSA Wrote:  For what it's worth, I was at Burger King yesterday for lunch. As I was walking to the counter, I heard a man on his cell phone say, "Well, that's the liberal agenda." I can only imagine the conversation he was having.

I'm just wondering where his co-conversant was. McDonald's, Wendy's, Sonic, Whataburger?