Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Spectral]

I assume we agree that this shouldn't reflect as "fuck those guys", but rather that it would be a good policy plan to implement strong work skill development programs for veterans. Having college education available for them is nice, but it's not for everyone.

[jmt]

I assume we agree that this shouldn't reflect as "fuck those guys", but rather that it would be a good policy plan to implement strong work skill development programs for veterans. Having college education available for them is nice, but it's not for everyone.

I think the US military could be used to accomplish so much more than policing the world. Unfortunately, using the military to train the cast outs is not feasible.

A good friend of mine served in the marine corpse with a tour in Afghanistan. He's also one of the most liberal people I personally know. He's doing fine post-service, but he chronicles it pretty well:

For those who come back from active deployment, they're treated like heroes regardless of what they accomplished. For some, that goes straight to their head. Those without families amass a small fortune (in their eyes) while deployed. And when they get back and people find out they're recent veterans, they're treated well. For most though, they squander what they've claimed and the treatment lasts about 6 months. Now they've quit the job they had, they have no money, and they've developed no practical civilian work skills. That includes benefits given under the GI bill for small business loans, vo-tech training, or cash to attend college.

The sad truth of the matter is that the demand for general labor (regardless of veteran status) decreases every year in the US. I don't think it should be a f- those guys mentality, but when the preference is squandered and they fall back into the general population, what can we really do?

[Grummgug]

This "it only means the military can own guns" is completely unfounded and not based in facts.

The people that take the above view need to explain why the founding fathers felt they needed to ensure the military could own guns. Was there a major crisis back then where militaries around the world were banning weapons from their own military? Was world peace breaking out or something? Confused on this one.

I'm trying to get a mental picture in my head. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, all sitting around a table.

Jefferson: We really need to be concerned about the gun issue.
Washington: Yes.
Madison: Agreed. The military may not be allowed to own guns.
Jefferson: What can we possibly do?
Madison: I mean, everyone in this day and age just assumes that the military doesn't have any weapons.
Jefferson: Fair point.
Madison: If there was only some way we could GUARANTEE that the military could own them.
Washington! Got it!
Madison: Go on...
Washington: Constitution amendment! Write an amendment that guarantees the government can own guns!
Jefferson! Brilliant!
Madison! Outstanding old man!
Jefferson: I'll write it up!
Washington: Thank you!
Madison: Well now that we've settled that, care for some coffee down at the pub?
Washington: Yes that will be wonderful.

[mvallas]

The current GoP members will not adapt at all.

...they, however, will eventually die at some point - and be replaced by new GoP members who CAN adapt to their losses. The new ones who grew up during the Bush years and realize how stupid their parents were for voting for him, and realize that what they say - and what they do - were two different things altogether.

[Grummgug]

The current GoP members will not adapt at all.

...they, however, will eventually die at some point - and be replaced by new GoP members who CAN adapt to their losses. The new ones who grew up during the Bush years and realize how stupid their parents were for voting for him, and realize that what they say - and what they do - were two different things altogether.

You may not realize this but, Obama did not win in a landslide. He won a very close election. 3.8 million votes separated the two, well below the 9.5 million vote margin of Obama's win 4 years prior. Obama lost two states he carried in 2008. He has no mandate. The GOP retained the House.

Of course, all political parties need to continue to adapt to win. Yes, even the democrats. But its always been true, and always will be true. But let's not kid ourselves and think the democrats came away with a huge win.

[Spectral]

He won a very close election..

This is the equivalent of a football team losing 33-21, racking up some garbage time yardage, and saying, "look, the yardage totals were pretty close". Every involved knows that the rules dictate that points and/or electoral votes decide the "game" and there was nothing particularly close about them.

He has no mandate.

The idea of a mandate is a nonsense concept in the first place. This is irrelevant.

[mvallas]

You may not realize this but, Obama did not win in a landslide. He won a very close election. 3.8 million votes separated the two, well below the 9.5 million vote margin of Obama's win 4 years prior. Obama lost two states he carried in 2008. He has no mandate. The GOP retained the House.

Of course, all political parties need to continue to adapt to win. Yes, even the democrats. But its always been true, and always will be true. But let's not kid ourselves and think the democrats came away with a huge win.

I didn't say they'll die tomorrow. :P

But, I believe we are in a transitional phase where the old regime and old ways are figuratively and LITERALLY dying off...

It all hinges on 2016 right now. If the Dems win the election in 2016 - it's over for the GoP and time to re-form/compromise.

[Sekhmet]

You do realize that in the rest of the western world, having opinions like "Evolution is a Lie" is political suicide. Even if the most conservative here may believe so, they would never promote that view. Not to mention pressing the issue of teaching "intelligent design" in schools. Anyone who did would become a liability and quickly removed from any important posts.

For a country that has a constitution that clearly separates state from church, and are supposedly basing values on the individuals freedom, there are a lot of things many self proclaimed freedom lovers dont hold with, such as the individuals right to choose their own partners (gay marriage) or the choice to avoid religion in schools. I dont really understand that, but Im pretty glad Im not raising my kids in the states.

[Spectral]

I dont really understand that, but Im pretty glad Im not raising my kids in the states.

You understand that the entire country isn't the same thing as the deep South, right?

[Sekhmet]

Yes, Ofc I am generalizing, and Im sure there are as many educational policys as there are states. I also know that some judical system or another ruled that you dont have to teach intelligent design as as valid as evolution, but just having the discussion is foreign to me.

[Spectral]

I wish like hell it was foreign to me as well. I really do. That said though, the Northeast and Northwest are both perfectly good places to raise kids.

[Sekhmet]

Yea. I wouldn't mind that terribly, Seattle for example seems like a very nice city.

But on general population basis, is it still a minority that gives credit to the evolutionary theory up north aswell? Saw a poll where only a small minority of the population found evolution to be the means on how life has formed.

[Spectral]

Here's a recent poll of the whole country (I don't know where to find regional splits, but I suspect they're strong):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evo...nt-design.aspx

Fairly depressing results, really. Not quite a majority though. Still a bunch of goddamned headdeskheaddeskheaddesk for me.

[Grizzly Willy]

46 percent isn't a majority in relation to 32 and 15 percent?

[Decklan]

The people that take the above view need to explain why the founding fathers felt they needed to ensure the military could own guns. Was there a major crisis back then where militaries around the world were banning weapons from their own military? Was world peace breaking out or something? Confused on this one.

I'm trying to get a mental picture in my head. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, all sitting around a table.

Jefferson: We really need to be concerned about the gun issue.
Washington: Yes.
Madison: Agreed. The military may not be allowed to own guns.
Jefferson: What can we possibly do?
Madison: I mean, everyone in this day and age just assumes that the military doesn't have any weapons.
Jefferson: Fair point.
Madison: If there was only some way we could GUARANTEE that the military could own them.
Washington! Got it!
Madison: Go on...
Washington: Constitution amendment! Write an amendment that guarantees the government can own guns!
Jefferson! Brilliant!
Madison! Outstanding old man!
Jefferson: I'll write it up!
Washington: Thank you!
Madison: Well now that we've settled that, care for some coffee down at the pub?
Washington: Yes that will be wonderful.

I think you missed the part in American history where America didn't have an organized military, and we'd just declared our freedom from Britain, who had just tried to suppress us as a colony and disband any armies that we did try to form. The only thing protecting American freedom at that time was the militia (semi-organized bands of local men who owned guns), which was more or less the entire American military. The US military was around, but it was very small.

So basically, the amendment was made in context in a time when our forefathers realized that England may come back to take away our freedoms, and that A WELL REGULATED MILITIA was necessary to maintain our freedoms. That amendment is somewhat outdated now that we have an officially formed and regulated US military. I also love the argument that people own guns JUST IN CASE THE GUBBAMENT TRIES TO COME AND TAKE AWAY THEIR FREEDOMS. Do you honestly think that if the government really wanted to take away your guns, that your hunting rifle or sidearm would do much against US military weapons?

So in the process of being sarcastic and trying to make them liberal hippies look dumb, you demonstrated that you slept through American History in grade school.

[smelltheglove]

He has no mandate.

what does this even mean?!? i keep hearing it from the fox news crowd, and the only explanation of it i hear amounts to "obama didnt win the rich white man vote". if it means something different feel free to explain

[Rommon64]

I'm pretty sure it's just them moving the goal posts; "Well, yeah, he won, but...but...but not by enough!"

[smelltheglove]

I'm pretty sure it's just them moving the goal posts; "Well, yeah, he won, but...but...but not by enough!"

or maybe something more like this: my vote = mandate, and he didnt get my vote. lol

[Rommon64]

or maybe something more like this: my vote = mandate, and he didnt get my vote. lol

Either way, he actually has the ultimate mandate; It's his last term, thus he doesn't need to get votes anymore.

[Spectral]

46 percent isn't a majority in relation to 32 and 15 percent?

Nope! It's still 47-46. The 32 and 15 are some variant of acceptance of evolution.

Trust me, I'm sufficiently bothered by this anyway.