• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Extremism Becoming Mainstream?

Reminds me of a South Park episode...

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?!

Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard!

Cartman: Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?

Kyle: Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.

Stan: Yeah, at least one-fourth.
 
Extremism has always existed in abundance. The Know-Nothings, the Klu Klux Klan, the New Age movements of the 60s, etc. Nothing has changed except popular interpretations are becoming more developed and intellectualized, which always occurs when the dissemination of knowledge is occurring at a faster rate. The Internet changed everything.
 
Last edited:
The worst cases of extremism becoming mainstream have to do with socialism and environmentalism.

Healthy skepticism of things like 9/11 is a good thing, and the "Truthers" do have a lot of circumstantial evidence on their side. The burden of proof is always on the government.
 
DP is a metaphor for the country. Check out the amount of extremists here, and you will suddenly discover that those who do not have far right or far left views are becoming a minority.
 
I don't know if I'd call the rise in Truthers and Birthers as a rise in extremism. More like a rise in massive stupidity. The South Park quote was dead on.
 
Has anyone mentioned the fact that "The Public Policy Polling firm" is a Democratic polling firm out of Raleigh?

Has anyone also said anything about the credibility issues concerning their agenda and the validity of their data? I just though this might be relevant information when evaluating their results. Take it into consideration, or dismiss it... Doesn't matter to me either way.

Here's something written about them I found on the net:

Beware: “public” pollsters with an agenda
Wednesday, June 24th, 2009


There are a few pollsters out there that claim to be publically distributing information, yet have a hidden agenda. Let’s take the Public Policy Polling firm as a prime example. This polling firm has consistently released polling number’s that show North Carolina’s senior Sen. Richard Burr’s approval ratings in the mid-30’s. Normally, this is dangerous territory for any sitting incumbent, but a closer look at the firm producing these “facts” shows they have an agenda.

“We’re absolutely rooting in this race. We don’t want Richard Burr to get reelected. We wanted Obama to win last fall.” - Public Policy Polling pollster Tom Jensen.

This is a quote in lieu of poll that showed Senator Burr as “vulnerable” by an admitted partisan hack. But Jensen decided not to make public his test of Sen. Richard Burr vs. the only announced opponent at this time, John Ross Hendrix. Hendrix, a “graphic artist” and perennial candidate is the announced Democrat candidate to take on Burr, yet he is not tested in this so-called survey. The simple fact remains that if Burr is tested in any poll against any “announced” Democrat, Burr cruises to reelection. Whether or not Hendrix is tested in Jensen’s poll samples, we’ll never know. What we do know is Jensen and Public Policy Polling will only release data that is favorable to Democrats.

Let’s look at another poll by Public Policy Polling in Ohio

This poll shows the Democrat(s) candidates leading the unopposed Republican candidate by 8-9 points. At least they admit their sample is 50% Democrat; 35% Republican. If anyone can tell me the last time a Presidential Democrat candidate won in Ohio by 15 points in my lifetime, I’ll buy you lunch.

Case in point: the Public Policy Polling firm has an agenda: electing Democrats. Taking their polls as scientific expert analysis as a true poll reflecting a hypothesis of voting behavior is a complete mistake. Any media outlet promoting their polling data should undoubtedly be questioned. Keep a close watch on this firm’s “public” polling, as it will consistently show Democrats leading to promote their own internal agenda. If they work for Democrat candidates, fine. But to release outrageous numbers showing essentially unopposed Senate candidates such as Richard Burr down is absurd and does a disgrace to the polling and survey community, as we stand by the numbers we produce for our clients and candidates.
Click to expand...
 
Alex Libman said:
Healthy skepticism of things like 9/11 is a good thing, and the "Truthers" do have a lot of circumstantial evidence on their side. The burden of proof is always on the government.
Click to expand...

Way to destroy your credibility.
 
Caedon said:
More than half of this country voted for a man with [...]
Click to expand...

(1) The 69,297,997 who voted for Obama represent 30.1% of 230 million adults in this country - less than a third.

(2) Most people only vote for the lesser of two evils.

(3) The smartest people are the least likely to vote.
 
Alex Libman said:
(1) The 69,297,997 who voted for Obama represent 30.1% of 230 million adults in this country - less than a third.
Click to expand...

So over half of those who voted. Small clarification, but I will grant you it.

(2) Most people only vote for the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Possible, but not likely. I think most people vote for the person they prefer.

(3) The smartest people are the least likely to vote.
Click to expand...

Bull****. People who cannot be bothered to vote are neither smart, nor of any real use to this country.
 
Redress said:
[...] I think most people vote for the person they prefer.
Click to expand...

So if you were to take a poll before the primaries letting people list and rank their top picks for president, 69,297,997 people would have picked Obama as their #1 choice? C'mon... He'd rank below Elmer Fudd! :roll:


Redress said:
Bull****. People who cannot be bothered to vote are neither smart, nor of any real use to this country.
Click to expand...

No, the people who don't want to dignify your rigged democratic circus with 10 minutes of their time are acting rationally. You aren't.
 
Alex Libman said:
So if you were to take a poll before the primaries letting people list and rank their top picks for president, 69,297,997 people would have picked Obama as their #1 choice? C'mon... He'd rank below Elmer Fudd! :roll:
Click to expand...

Let me try and explain this simple concept to you, since either you are dishonest, or you are not bright enough to comprehend. I used a word, "most". It means that a majority of people voted their preference, not that all did.


No, the people who don't want to dignify your rigged democratic circus with 10 minutes of their time are acting rationally. You aren't.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty serious accusation...if you can prove it. You have evidence that the election system is rigged(note this is not the same thing as certain precincts having voter fraud issues)? I am waiting to see what paranoid fantasy you come up with for this.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Only 59% of Americans say confidently that they think Barack Obama was born in the country while 23% think he was not, and 18% are unsure.
Click to expand...

Only 59% of Americans believe our president was born here... That's pretty scary and embarrassing at the same time.

Who have the 23% been listening to? :screwy
 
Redress said:
Let me try and explain this simple concept to you, since either you are dishonest, or you are not bright enough to comprehend. I used a word, "most". It means that a majority of people voted their preference, not that all did.
Click to expand...

And I have ridiculed your claim, pointing out that people have very limited choices in selecting their government figureheads, and no substantive control over what those figureheads do after they are elected.


Redress said:
That is a pretty serious accusation...if you can prove it. You have evidence that the election system is rigged(note this is not the same thing as certain precincts having voter fraud issues)? I am waiting to see what paranoid fantasy you come up with for this.
Click to expand...

Whether it is rigged on a functional level is irrelevant - the system is inherently violent and irrational, and thus I refuse to justify it with my participation.


wolves_and_sheep_shirt.JPG
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
DP is a metaphor for the country. Check out the amount of extremists here, and you will suddenly discover that those who do not have far right or far left views are becoming a minority.
Click to expand...

I certainly concur with your second statement, but I might point out by way of your first that those who post here do not represent a valid statistical sampling. Only those who are motivated to talk politics post here in the first place, so by very nature the system selects for zealotry.
 
Alex Libman said:
And I have ridiculed your claim, pointing out that people have very limited choices in selecting their government figureheads, and no substantive control over what those figureheads do after they are elected.
Click to expand...

The requirements to run are not that difficult to achieve. Over 100 people run each presidential election.




Whether it is rigged on a functional level is irrelevant - the system is inherently violent and irrational, and thus I refuse to justify it with my participation.
Click to expand...

So where is this history of election violence? How is taking part in the process to chose the people who lead the country, the sate, the local area irrational? It's not. People who make excuses for their own laziness and apathy are the irrational ones.
 
Redress said:
So where is this history of election violence? How is taking part in the process to chose the people who lead the country, the sate, the local area irrational? It's not. People who make excuses for their own laziness and apathy are the irrational ones.
Click to expand...
I believe Alex's point is that the election is a charade. Bush(a Republican) set the precedent for massive spending and Obama(a Democrat) is doing his part by perpetuating it. The fact that you see a large difference between the ideologies of "Republicans" and "Democrats" is amusing to me.
 
EgoffTib said:
I believe Alex's point is that the election is a charade. Bush(a Republican) set the precedent for massive spending and Obama(a Democrat) is doing his part by perpetuating it. The fact that you see a large difference between the ideologies of "Republicans" and "Democrats" is amusing to me.
Click to expand...

Spending money is not violent, nor is it fraud. Are you saying that Alex is just using way over the top hyperbole?

When you are part of an extreme fringe, then I suppose that those more mainstream philosophies will seem alike, but that is simply because you are on the fringe. Those of us with more mainstream views can see clear differences between the policies advocated and enacted by republicans and democrats.
 
Redress said:
Spending money is not violent, nor is it fraud. Are you saying that Alex is just using way over the top hyperbole?
Click to expand...
I don't know, he'll have to answer that one himself.

When you are part of an extreme fringe, then I suppose that those more mainstream philosophies will seem alike, but that is simply because you are on the fringe. Those of us with more mainstream views can see clear differences between the policies advocated and enacted by republicans and democrats.
Click to expand...
I do not think it is a good thing that you can "see clear differences". Just means you took the bait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom