Freedom of Speech = Freedom from Responsibility?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So, I know, I know. It's Glenn Beck. We expect the whacko from him. And, of course, he's got every right to speak his mind; I certainly don't think he should be censored.

But at what point does he become responsible for the actions of people who follow his advice?



Buy farmland. Move to places where everyone is like you. Buy guns. Buy ammunition. And then... what? It's not like enclaving really works long term. Eventually, one of two things will happen.

1) After Obama's term ends without the world doing the same, maybe some of these people will pull their heads out and say "why did we listen to that guy?"
2) Someone provokes an incident.

The message sent by the American people this election was quite clear. The President won a resounding electoral victory and beat his opponent by more votes than Bush beat Kerry. Every competitive senate race save for one was taken by the democrats, and these aren't blue-dogs we're talking about; these are real progressive liberals like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. And while the GOP retained the House, they did lose seats, and more people voted for Democratic Congresspeople than Republicans.

It was a fundamental rejection of GOP ideology. It was a rejection of the rape brigade, a rejection of the Ryan budget plan, a rejection of the concepts of the Makers and Takers, a rejection of the concept of the 47%, a rejection of conservative definitions of marriage, women, LGBTQ, race, immigration and drug law.

But the GOP doesn't seem to want to believe it. The constant refrain of "Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" continues to sing in their ears, drowning out anything resembling the truth, which is that they lost and they lost big, and then they turn to people like Glenn Beck, and he tells them to buy farms, move to where everyone is like you, and get more guns.

Or this guy, who advocates cutting EVERY democrat in your life out of that life, to the point where he doesn't know if he'd rescue a democrat who was drowning, and thinks that he can get better brain surgery in Mexico than from a US brain surgeon who happened to vote differently than he did.

Or these people who think that losing an election is a national emergency so they, who so often rail about how burning the flag is treasonous, fly their flags upside down to indicate distress.



At their McDonalds.

And why do they do this?

Because they've been lied to, by the guy at the top of this post. By Rush. By Karl Rove. By http://www.unskewedpolls.com By every pundit who insisted that Nate Silver was cheating. Hell, GOP donors are angry because they were assured, ASSURED, I TELL YOU, that Romney was going to win based on bad data using bad algorithms, and a campaign that wasn't going to be dictated to by facts.

So what responsibility to these people have to tell the truth, I wonder? Of course, I think they should tell the truth. There are reasonable arguments to be made on policy. There are reasonable disagreements to have. I just wish we could see more of that, and less insistence that Obama is a kenyan radical christian muslim nazi communist.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This does not answer the question.

Yes it does. Maybe you can clear up this mystery and answer me yourself, then.

Probably Clinton.

Hillary 2016!

That's the left wing spin on it, sure.

88% of Romney's voters were white. 54% of Obama's voters were white. More people voted for Obama in the 18-45 age bracket.

Where is the spin? Republicans can't just rely on the old white vote anymore.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes it does. Maybe you can clear up this mystery and answer me yourself, then.

I'm not sure where the idea that the base showed up in 2008 is. The numbers don't seem to bear it out (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/173444/mccain-base-and-turnout/byron-york).

Where is the spin? Republicans can't just rely on the old white vote anymore.

They can, they just need to get them to the polls.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where the idea that the base showed up in 2008 is. The numbers don't seem to bear it out.

McCain got 60 million. Bush got 62 million. Assuming the base showed in 2004 (If they didn't, then the gap of voters doesn't exist since the numbers get smaller and smaller 2000 and back), then McCain got 96% of Bush's votes. Considering how minorities and independents broke for Obama in 2008, you might even say McCain got more of the base than Bush did.

They can, they just need to get them to the polls.

Like I said before, I don't think there's anyone left to go to the polls. The amount of 45+ white voters aren't going to increase significantly by 2016. You vastly over-estimate the 'true conservative' sleeping beast.

But by all means, I encourage the GOP to stay the course for another 4 years. I'm sure saying that minorities and women voted for Obama because they wanted 'free stuff' is a fantastic rallying cry to get them to your side.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Considering how minorities and independents broke for Obama in 2008, you might even say McCain got more of the base than Bush did.

So your position is "the base showed up because the base showed up." Okay.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

How many times are you going to ignore the numbers? There's only a 2 million GOP vote difference between 2008 and 2004, and 2008 saw a lot of independents and minorities going Democrat. Either the base didn't show up and they will NEVER show up because they NEVER have, or they DID show up and you will never get more than 62 million for a Republican candidate ever again. There is no 3rd option unless you ignore reality.

Also, your point about the House is effectively null and void, because the only reason so few seats switched is because of gerrymandering, because Democrats actually won the popular vote for the House. So tell me more about this right-ward shift.

Source: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The numbers show fewer for McCain, and probably fewer than McCain for Romney. The base clearly didn't show up.

Also, your point about the House is effectively null and void, because the only reason so few seats switched is because of gerrymandering, because Democrats actually won the popular vote for the House. So tell me more about this right-ward shift.

That, of course, is not how the House works. But good on you for misunderstanding even the most basic points of our government to continue to advocate for a nonsensical point, I suppose.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I don't pretend to have enough of a macro-view on the numbers to be able to say that the House elections broke the way they did solely because of the 2010 redistricting process, but you seem to be excluding the possibility that incumbency advantage and more favorably-drawn home districts could be playing any role in the Republican's retention of control over the House. Is that a data-driven consideration? If so, what is the relevant data you're relying on?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It surely played some role, but if it was significant, we would have seen more gains as a result. I'm not sure many Republicans took now-Democratic districts, and the idea that the 2010 lines with 2012 votes would have equaled a Democratic takeover misses a lot of points regarding blue states losing seats due to migration and such.

It can't be discounted, but if there's truly a leftward shift, it would actually show in the data. Vote shares don't show it, and Obama having longer coattails doesn't show it, either.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The numbers show fewer for McCain, and probably fewer than McCain for Romney. The base clearly didn't show up.

So we're just ignoring your own point about independents and minorities that I'm using to bridge the 2 million gap between McCain and Bush.

That, of course, is not how the House works. But good on you for misunderstanding even the most basic points of our government to continue to advocate for a nonsensical point, I suppose.

I don't know if you've ever had a real discussion before with physical human beings, but generally if you're planning to contradict them in a meaningful fashion, you should actually provide evidence for your assertions. We're not getting anywhere if all your responses are just "no ur wrong k thx".

The Dems won the popular vote for the House in 2012. This is a fact.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So we're just ignoring your own point about independents and minorities that I'm using to bridge the 2 million gap between McCain and Bush.

Where did I use that point?

The Dems won the popular vote for the House in 2012. This is a fact.

And the House isn't won via popular vote, so it's not how it works, and by hanging your hat on that, you misunderstand a basic point of our government.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Where did I use that point?

Alright, I'm done. If you can't remember what you said 5 comments ago, I'm not dredging it up for you. You're clearly not interested in having a discussion.

And the House isn't won via popular vote, so it's not how it works, and by hanging your hat on that, you misunderstand a basic point of our government.

It is a counter-argument against your point that the nation has shifted 'right-ward' because so few seats flipped. I was not making a comment about the process of the House.

You're not paying any attention to what I'm saying. As much as I would love another 200-comment trainwreck with you, I'm done. I don't think I'll ever get anywhere with you. You're convinced this election is somehow a GOP victory. The denial is ridiculous. Luckily, the GOP shares your view, so I can't wait until they fall flat on their face in 2016.

I'm no longer interested in talking with conspiracy theorists.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Alright, I'm done. If you can't remember what you said 5 comments ago, I'm not dredging it up for you. You're clearly not interested in having a discussion.

If you're struggling to follow the conversation, that's not my problem.

You're convinced this election is somehow a GOP victory.

Never said that, either. Perhaps you should spend less time whining about "conspiracy theorists" and more time formulating coherent arguments.