Is Anyone Else Sick of Hyperpartisans????

True, but that's not saying much, ultimately.

 

I think you are misusing the word hyper-partisan and mean to direct your ire at low information voters that vote for superficial stuff that has nothing to do with the election.

You can be a moderate and base your opinion on the candidates on stupid stuff.

 

Yes, you understand what hyperpartisan means. - people incapable of admitting their party/candidate could possibly be wrong on anything, This doesn't mean you can't point out 10,000 things wrong with Obama or Romney, if there are that many.

It means you have to twist everything that happens so that it makes your guy look good.

I love Fox News, but Mr. Hannity and Mr. Kilmead are hyperpartisan.
I don't like MSNBC because the MAJORITY of them are hyperpartisan.

 

If you look across the sweep of US history, what today gets called "hyperpartisanship" was normal before the great consolidation of the news media with the advent of high speed presses and broadcast media. Have you ever read the partisan stuff put out by some of the Framers - notably but not exclusively Jefferson? Would you care to be verbally mugged by a guy who had that terrific command of the language?

Because of the high capital cost of the high speed printing and broadcast (first radio then TV) control of the media consolidated into a very samll grouop (those with access to enough capital to buy the media infrastructure). All the local newspapers and broadsheets were run out of business by the more efficient infrastructure of Big Media. For three quarters of a century, the national dialogue was damped down by a small group of people headquartered on the Upper West Side of Manhattan who controlled the flow of information. Their control of the conversation reached its zenith the night that Uncle Walter asked "What the **** is going on here?" and de facto turned the people against the Vietnam War. Since that night in 1968, the MSM has increasingly overplayed its hand and the people have gotten a whiff of rodent and as a result alternative sources of information have grown up. first the clumsy venting-oriented media of talk radio (AM radio trying to save itself from technological obsolescence. Then cable news. Then the Internet came along. The Monica story and matt Drudge showed plainly that the news was being filtered along political lines and the control of the national dialogue fell apart.

Nature (and politics) hates a vacuum. So the national dialogue returned to the competitive (and nasty) state it was in before the media consolidation.

There is another factor. The FDR realignment has about run its course. US history has been dominated by major realignments. In 1800, Jefferson engineered a realignment (supporting small government and slavery) that - reinforced by Jackson - lasted til Fort Sumpter. 65 years. After the Civil War the GOP engineered a relignment that resulted in total GOP dominance (Cleveland and Wilson never had a compliant Congress) from 1865 to 1932 67 year. In 1933 FDR engineered a realignment that has lasted with minor dilution since 1932 to today - 79 years.

The US is overdue for a new realignment.

Old realignments never go down without a fight. Hence, hyperpartisanship.

 

....

 

Yes, I would rather be mugged by Jefferson because it wouldn't turn into a discussion of bird shirts, how many kids people have with them onstage, and other useless trivia that only means something to the modern partisan mind.

 

That's not a dig at you. Just your homies.

 

Zos complains about hyperpartsians, and the usual suspects show up and do their routine. lol.

 

What isn't a conspiracy, however, is the fact that both sides of the aisle are about 95% similar on the issues, and they're both done an equally outstanding job burying the country.

 

Based on your past posts that show an inflexible position----don't you think you might come under the "HyperPartisan" catagory?

 

You don't think I'd vote for a Democrat if they were the more conservative choice? Of course I would. I have no allegiance to the Republican Party. They are just the most conservative party that can actually win at the moment, so I'm supporting them as an Independent. You guys need to do a better job of throwing around labels. They really don't reflect reality most of the time.

 

Honestly, truly...you didn't see Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber on that stage last night? I got so depressed.

 

"...I would rather be mugged by Jefferson..."

Taxcutter says:
Obviously you are not familiar with Jefferson's vitriol for Hamilton. Nobody today has ever heard such attacks. They were and are genuine fightin' words.

 

I think if you find yourself using derogatory terms towards the other side you're probably partisan. I have very rarely personally attacked anyone here. And I have very rarely used a derogatory term for conservatives here. But I am insulted nearly everyday. Sometimes about personal things such as my past on welfare. It's a bit disturbing.

 

You'd be saying that about any non-libertarian politician who was up there. Libertarians nowadays are always saying "zOMG how could u guyz liek Romney!?! lulz" but it's not like they would have preferred Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, or Herman Cain, or any of the others who were in the running. The only two people they would have even considered were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, nobody else had a chance. I don't see how they claim high ground on partisanship.

 

Genuine fighting words are just fine. These people on here are acting like a bunch of high school (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es.

 

I'm not sure if I've used zOMG, yet but I might start just for the lulz.

 

He actually doesn't. Nor do "tens of millions of Americans" donate a third of their income to charity. This sounds as partisan as someone complaining that Obama/Biden don't give diddly squat to charity.

I also can't stand hyper-partisans. It's one thing to just know where you stand - but that's not what partisans do.

 

Notice it is always the extremist libs who tell everyone they hate extremism?

Zosias agrees with libs on just about every single issue, but she wants us to believe she hates partisans.

 

Do I?

Where do they stand on welfare cuts?

Where do they stand on Obama's abuse of the 4th amendment?

Where do they stand on the TSA?

Where do they stand on Obamacare?

Get over yourself. You're just mad because you can't call yourself a libertarian anymore because all of us are to the right of you.

 

hyper-partisans? I think that's pretty self explanatory really. I'd be worried if someone didn't know what that meant.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

I settled voting for romney. That doesnt make me ideologically aligned with him.

So you voted gary johnson, good, i hope you feel good knowing you gave one less vote to obama and on top of that you will not effect uS politics at all. Your vote is good for nothing more than helping you sleep at night, feeling all righteous. I hope it works.

 

I am a stock trader by day and want to add. There is a lot of misinformation about the tax rate and how it works with investing or trading. You only get taxed on your profits. You do not get taxed on what you put in or losses. Tax rate is 10-15% for long term and about 35% for short term (less then a year).

So yes they should get taxed for PROFITS because that is additional money just like you would make in any job. 15% is too low, I think 20-25% is fair.

Investments have been increasing for the last 50 years across many industries. If anything it has been the internet and the formation of private trading companies that has caused the biggest boom, not the tax rate. Before the advent of online trading companies traders and investors would need to hire brokers to invest, which pretty much blocks off like the vast majority of Americans. It's not the case anymore. Trading is far more efficient, cheaper and accessible now more so then ever. And that started in the late 90's....Clinton gets way too much credit for that.

 

I am a stock trader by day and want to add. There is a lot of misinformation about the tax rate and how it works with investing or trading. You only get taxed on your profits. You do not get taxed on what you put in or losses. Tax rate is 10-15% for long term and about 35% for short term (less then a year).

So yes they should get taxed for PROFITS because that is additional money just like you would make in any job. 15% is too low, I think 20-25% is fair.

Investments have been increasing for the last 50 years across many industries. If anything it has been the internet and the formation of private trading companies that has caused the biggest boom, not the tax rate. Before the advent of online trading companies traders and investors would need to hire brokers to invest, which pretty much blocks off like the vast majority of Americans. It's not the case anymore. Trading is far more efficient, cheaper and accessible now more so then ever. And that started in the late 90's....Clinton gets way too much credit for that.

 

She seems pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) libertarian to me.