Noam Chomsky Nails Why the GOP Has Fallen Off the Deep End

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-nails-why-gop-has-fallen-deep-end

"The Republican party, about twenty years ago, basically abandoned any pretense of being a normal political party," Chomsky noted. "Their only policies are don't do anything or bomb. That's not a political party."

Chomsky described how Republicans gravitated toward an increasingly radical base in the 1980s and '90s.

"[Republicans] became so dedicated to the interests of the extreme wealthy and powerful that they couldn't get votes. So they had to turn to other constituencies, which were always there but were never politically mobilized. So they turned to Christian evangelicals, the nativists who are afraid they're taking our country away from us. People who are so terrified they have to carry a gun in a coffee shop."

The Democratic party has also undergone a profound transformation.

"Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called Republicans. Somebody like Eisenhower would be considered way out on the left," he noted, explaining that Eisenhower supported New Deal programs, while modern-day Republicans are eternally trying to gut the safety net.

I would surmise that Hillary is to the far right of Eisenhower. Think about that, Clintonistas.

[brucefan]

1. Had to get your shot in

Didn't you?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

7. Just following the pattern of the Clintonistas constant cheap shots against Bernie.

Maybe the two groups should call a truce and monitor compliance, but as long as they keep doing it, I will play the same game.

[LanternWaste]

19. "He did it too!" is famously popular in grade-school.

No doubt, it is convenient to predicate one's own ethics on those he criticizes. "He did it too!" is famously popular among grade-school schildren. I can readily understand why you would choose as much, regardless of how we rationalize to others.

[madaboutharry]

2. Bringing Hillary into this discussion is silly.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. I made a valid point - I wish people weren't so misinformed.

[Scuba]

3. There's no question that Hillary is to the right of Ike.

[randys1]

27. You clearly dont know much about Ike then.

[Scuba]

37. You clearly don't get Hillary. Ike warned us about the MIC. When has Hillary done that?

[randys1]

38. Would you like to lay out 10 or 20 issues and show us what Ike and her positions are?

[Scuba]

43. Ike never hung around with Pete Peterson.

Ball's in your court.

[randys1]

50. No, you are the one who claims Hillary is to the right. So I need prove nothing.

Maybe it would be too hard to research Ike's positions (for anyone), on that many issues, but unless you are a Rovian plant and are here to plant doubt in the minds of potential Hillary voters, you then must be a sincere progressive who supports Bernie.

My fear is you and others like you have, to make an understatement, lost the forest for the trees.

I will explain the rational position, once again:

Work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year to elect REAL liberals into ALL government and once every year or 2 or 4, take out 5 minutes (8 hours if you are Black) and VOTE for that which causes the least harm so at least you are ALLOWED to continue to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year for REAL liberals.

Bernie, for instance, in case you are wondering my definition of a REAL liberal, would qualify but just barely. His positions on guns and defense makes it BARELY for me, while I dont consider Hillary a REAL liberal in my book, but then again, see theory above.

[Scuba]

61. Pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-fracking, pro-Keystone XL, pro-H1B Visas. Too far right for me.

[randys1]

62. So still nothing. How about admit your statement is wrong, and that she is still too

far right for your tastes, but not to the right of Ike.

??

[Scuba]

63. Has she called out the MIC yet? Or just taken their money?

And why does she pal around with Pete Peterson when Ike said "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security ... you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

[randys1]

64. Hillary has called for abolishing Social Security? Or did she and many many DC

politicians hang out in crowds that include people who say that?

Which is it?

I still dont see that list of yours.

[Scuba]

65. Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes.

[redstateblues]

4. Is that you Trey Gowdy?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

9. Is that you Hillary?

[arely staircase]

5. I seriously doubt Ike was for gay marriage. NT

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

10. I don't. He was a very good and fair man. Probably before Hillary was.

[Orrex]

23. You're calling Hillary Clinton a man?

Yeah, you are indeed proof that Sanders' supporters are his biggest weakness.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

34. More made up BULLSHIT.

[Orrex]

36. You have indeed made up a lot of bullshit

Sorry to have to be the one to call you out for it, but there you go.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

39. You do know that calling people out is against the TOS?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

52. Gotcha!

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Gee, how cool is it for the Democratic Party to have marriage equality to brag about! What would you

wave around four years ago, when all the Big Democrats were still all opposed to marriage equality?

[G_j]

6. K&R

[DirkGently]

11. Yes. This is the same false choice we've had for years.

Republicans used to support labor and higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Democrats brought us Social Security.

Now we're supposed to choose between flavors of corporate deification -- with or without a side order of theocracy, nativism, or bigotry.

People see it, and are tired of it.

We are in a different world now, and 1990s compromises with Wall Street will not work, not that they ever did.

[colsohlibgal]

12. Why We Got Here

Too many citizens are uninformed and/or misinformed. The dumbing down of America is ongoing.

The republicans have gone right right off the cliff...but still get millions to go directly against their own personal interest and thus support their far right corporate agenda.

Ike was most certainly largely to the left of HRC.

Reagan began the slide right, Bill Clinton pushed it into high gear.

Hillary has two strikes....too much a corporate democrat and the old SNL bit "really?" as in we have had two Bushes and she would be the second Clinton.

Canada, Iceland, they took steps to control plutocracy, will we?

[randys1]

28. Anyone who claims Hillary is to the right of IKE needs to be challenged. Please

You and the other person here who said that should provide us with about 20 issues each and show us where each stood, otherwise your comments are meaningless.

Who knows, if you are right, you might convince someone other than yourself.

Anything is possible and since our end goal here is the best possible government, I say go for it.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

40. Ever heard of an opinion? That is mine. Now I know yours. Good bye.

[randys1]

46. In all sincerity, I say things exaggerated and get called on it myself, so my goal

here is not to embarrass or piss you off or whatever, but to point out that no, from a simple fact based world, Hillary is not at all to the right of Ike.

Sure, today Ike would be thought of as way too far left for the vicious american taliban, aka teapary, i grant you that.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

47. Ike warned about the MIC, Hillary rewards it.

[moondust]

13. Hasn't it always been

the party of Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, and Vanderbilts who gradually figured out how to exploit wedge issues to lure the large numbers of gullible voters they needed to win elections?

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. That was set off by "Clintonistas"? Look in the mirror.

This whole thing about "supporters" turning people off is pretty silly. But it is a good way to avoid actually addressing issues, as in this case: the entire political spectrum's slide to the right.

[Orrex]

17. Yeah, yeah.

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But will you vote for Clinton in Nov 2016?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. Not with the likes of supporter like you.

[Orrex]

41. So you're voting Republican, then? Unsurprising.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

45. Wrong, Mr. Know-it-All.

[Skeeter Barnes]

53. results

On Mon Oct 26, 2015, 12:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Can we assign shitty labels for you, too?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7289200

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Because I called them Clintonistas which means "people devoted to Hillary Clinton" and we are called Bernistas. Now this jackass is trashing the TOS to make people take sides against me just for that comment. Someone slap this guy.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 26, 2015, 12:43 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm not going to slap him, but I am really tired of the nastiness.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think these arguments are childish and need to stop.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: over top
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just answer his question or take the slap of which you are so deserving. Strange how some people seem to, at all costs, avoid the mirror.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is an all out of proportion response to the OP, and needs to be hidden.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I voted to leave it alone. Had far worse said to me here and had juries vote unanimously to leave it. Only voted to hide something once, IIRC. Bernie supporter, BTW. Try a little harder to be nice?

[PowerToThePeople]

55. I will never vote Clinton.

Ever.

[joeybee12]

15. This could have been an interesting thread...

But you ruined it right off the bat.

[Orrex]

21. If you've suffered through any of his other posts...

You'll see that that's his usual M.O.

[joeybee12]

24. I avoid GDP...

Every once in a while I just look at the titles there and roll my eyes.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

33. Calling out other DUers is against the TOS

[joeybee12]

48. I'm stating like it is...

This is not calling out...calling out would be starting my own thread about what you did.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

49. Not true.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

42. It could have been very interesting if the Clintonistas hadn't tried to trash it.

[LanternWaste]

18. as surmise means to infer without evidence, your prophecy is no more nor no less valid

Well, as surmise means to infer without evidence, your prophecy is no more nor no less valid than my eleven year old niece's conjecture that a glittery and dreamy vampire will fall in love with her, regardless of the petulant and child-like use of 'clintonista" the vampire may wind up using...

[Orrex]

22. Honestly, your niece's conjecture seems less far-fetched to me.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

20. "Clintonistas"??? That's enough of that goddamned shit!!! What the hell does that even mean

and why are you referring to fellow DUers and fellow Democrats as "Clintonistas"?

You should be ashamed of yourself! What are you, a thrid-grader?

[Orrex]

25. It means that the Dumper has embraced GOP mythology

And it means, in turn, that he has nothing to offer beyond childish attacks culled from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

Kindred spirits, it seems.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

32. I'm just copying the "childish" taunt of Sandernistas I see here all the time!

Get a fucking clue!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

30. Once the Clintonistas stop calling us Sandernistas, I will be happy to stop.

Funny how you people start this shit, then you complain when someone else does the same!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

44. Two wrongs don't make it right. I don't care who started it. Do you know that derisive (let's be

honest, it's meant to be) name is what rush limpballs calls Hillary's supporters? What, we're colluding with rush now to tear down a fellow Democrate who, let's face it, looks to be the probable nominee?

[PowerToThePeople]

56. Good job. A k&r for this post.

I would voice my opinion on the types of people who play the games you talk about, but it is not worth a hide.

[villager]

26. "Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called Republicans."

And that's precisely the problem.

We have a Republican party, and a Fascist party, and that's it.

[arcane1]

29. And as the repub party falls apart, the "sane" ones may end up moving to our side.

Gee thanks!

[villager]

31. So then will sane Demos -- who have a memory of what the Demo party was -- get to move, too?

Current mainstream Demos can then "uncloak" and freely become they Republicans they currently are...

[arcane1]

51. Indeed, I'd much prefer to keep the party and kick out the conservative ones.

Far better for the crazy wing of the republicans to start their own damn party.

[PFunk1]

59. It may be sarcasm but that's already begining to happen.

While I would love it the FDR types would just kick the DINO's out of the democratic party. I also Know a lot of folks who have been checking out the green party in case they need a place to go if the DINO succeed.

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. But Republicans will tell you Democrats are more

radical than ever.

[PFunk1]

57. Spot on Chomsky.

It was mainly on Bill Clinton's watch that the Democratic Party began to go away from the FDR mantel (with Obama aiding it further) to the near DINO one we have to day. And many within the party are working to make that transition complete. And would have if it wasn't for the real progressive grass roots to rise up and take notice. Now 2016 will probally decide if they or the DINO's win.

The repug party on the other hand is starting to look like a lost cause. At least to me. I don't think we'll ever see and Ike repug again anytime soon.

[ThoughtCriminal]

60. And then there's the feedback loop

Ever noticed that no matter what happens, the result is "Conservatives move farther to the right".

Win election: Mandate! Move to the right!
Lose Election: Lost because they did not stick to "principles". Move farther to the right!

[Attorney in Texas]

66. H. and B.Clinton are both to the far right of Ike. B.Clinton governed well to the right of Nixon. We

can only hope that H.Clinton will govern more like Obama and less like her husband (or -- alternatively -- we can elect Sanders who will govern somewhere to the left of Nixon and to the right of FDR and LBJ).