So tonight was caucus night in MN, and the paper has been saying MN has a great system, where individuals really can make a difference at a caucus. So I decided to show up at the Republican one. Now, I'm not a Republican, but Obama is making everyone feel like one.

The first thing I learned is there is no enthusiasm for politics at the local level. Hardly anyone showed up. Anyone who wanted to be a delegate to the next level could do it.

The next thing I learned is how much I hate much of the Republican platform. I read it and just kept getting madder and madder. Basically, their platform is "we're for small government, except when we're not, then we're for big government." It was so frustrating. (They want to ban all gambling, including the lottery?!?! WTF????) Now, maybe if I felt like getting involved and could motivate people, I could start to change stuff, but I have a feeling it would be a lot of work for a small gains.

The most interesting thing I learned was that an individual can make a huge difference at the state level. They said that if a state representative gets three calls on an issue they wonder why everyone is so riled up. So they said stop by the capitol anytime and you can get an audience and they will listen to your concerns.

Overall, a frustrating, boring time. I won't be doing that again.

One other thing they said was interesting: election judges make a big difference. Democrats in this state are really good at getting election judges out, and it probably got Al Franken elected. There were LOTS of precincts with voting irregularities favoring Democrats, but since the R's can't get anyone to be an election judge, the results stood.

Um, yeah. The GOP's "platform" is basically one big series of contradictions.

(We will do anything to protect America----except let gays help!; We love small government----until you want to play internet poker or smoke some pot quietly or marry a member of the same sex; we love fiscal responsibility----we just totally space about it every time we get in charge!; we're pro-life....except for the death penalty and unwavering support for things that have to sole purpose of causing injury and death guns!)

And as much as you may not like Obama, he is a Democrat so he cannot get his more out there ideas done. Republicans will have far less problems getting their worst ideas done.

The Democrats: Embrace Our Political Ineptitude.

I have quite a few issues with the official republican platform, but i find the bolded far less ridiculous than people who are for abortions (especially late term or partial birth) but against the death penalty for capital crimes.

Also the notion that small government must mean that the government doesn't enforce laws is just being argumentative for arguments sake.

I am for a smaller government, meaning I don't want the US government to be the largest employer in the world, and I don't want bureaucracies to be created for their own sake.

Why does that mean I must also want the government to have no say in things that the community feels are important?

Does a small government mean that there are no enforcements of pornography laws? or does it mean there are no pornography laws?

Equating small government with libertarianism is just hijacking the phrase, not proving a point.

The main reason that I'm against the Death Penalty has nothing to do with me being against killing people.

My main reasons are that far too many mistakes are made with innocent people being found guilty and also that it's less expensive to jail somebody for life.

There are some people who deserve to die but I don't trust the Justice systems that we have to only do it to those people so I would rather that nobody be put to death.

I can understand this side of the issue.

We need to move to this system then obviously:



Seriously though, I absolutely see your side of the issue. I think that we will inevitably get to the point with DNA evidence where that is almost an impossibility. I'm more in the camp of: super against abortion and not against the death penalty where it's actually proven beyond any shadow of a doubt (DNA, etc) that someone actually committed the crimes they're accused of.

because, in this scenario, the NATIONAL government is picking things that only SOME COMMUNITIES feel are important to impose on EVERYONE.


Also, Bob has nail/head the issue of the Death Penalty.

In most every state including California, the gay marriage ban has been upheld every time it's on the ballot. So unless when you say SOME COMMUNITIES you mean most of this country, then I don't see what you are trying to say.

This is probably the conclusion that will be reached when all but the most self-absorbed, power hungry, and generally odd people dabble in politics.

I could get behind a lottery ban.

actually I believe the # of states that approved gay marriage is currently between 10-13. Also, there are more issues besides gay marriage of course. Prescription marijuana is now legal in 13 states....

Also the gay marriage ban in California won 52% to 48%. So if you when you so communities you mean a tiny, tiny majority of people then that makes sense.

I am missing your point.

You implied that it was a small community imposing their will on the masses. Then your above clearly shows that it is the minority that is in favor of something and you are implying that this proves your point.

I guess I am unsure how you define the words majority and minority...


And medical maryjuanda..is that the same as legalizing all maryjuanda? Or is this another reclassification of word meanings to allow you to declare victory?

You should post in the religion section more, you would fit right in with the evolutionist

Ok a follow up then.

If you are super against abortion, do you also support the conservative platform of opposing non-abstinence only sex education and opposing the distribution of condoms in high schools?

Because that's another contradiction that drives me crazy. If you do not like abortion, why do you support policies that increase unwanted pregnancies?

No, I am worried about 55% of people imposing their views on 45% and vice versa. I mean it is some communities imposing their beliefs on some communities. Because most things like gay marriage and abortion come out about 55-45. Same with legalization of pot too I think.

I wouldn't call it a contradiction, so much as it's just impractical.

Surely you would agree that abstinence would decrease pregnancies.

In theory, yes.

Of course, surely anyone who has been to high school would agree that expecting high school kids to practice abstinence is about as realistic as asking the sun to stop rising in the East.

So you want the minority view to win because if it's close...what is your point here?

I mean besides you want the things you want to be legal regardless of how the rest of the country feels?

Again, a nice belief not founded in reality

The most liberal site I could find to remove the 'consider the source' dodge

No, the point is the minority in the gay marriage debate wants inclusion not exclusion. The bar should have to be much higher than 55% to start outlawing things. With current abortion rules, you can choose. Conservative social ideas are about outlawing this or that or banning this or that. I dont feel 55% should be allowed to outlaw or ban things that 45% of people want. The 45% are just trying to provide choices.

Thats the biggest difference. It's a hard idea to explain while also trying to play poker. Sorry.

In high school I played football, starred in plays, had plenty of very attractive long term girlfriends including a cheerleader and a drill team chick and lost my virginity on my wedding night at 23. Get ready for perpetual darkness kids.

Roe V. Wade won by a 5-4 decision, so by this logic you would argue that we must strike it down?

The tyranny of the minority is a real phenomenon in this country.



And conservative social ideas are not about outlawing, they are about preserving...or another word would be conserving. You see the connection there?

Teaching abstinence-only does not decrease pregnancies. It increases them. There's lots of research on that.

Tyranny? The minority is about giving people options the the majority is about taking them away.

You do see why this statement is without any common sense or reality based perspective known to man don't you?

Of course luckily for us that the only people who believe this are in the minority....hey wait a minute

In Dr. Jemmott’s research, only about a third of the students who participated in a weekend abstinence-only class started having sex within the next 24 months, compared with about half who were randomly assigned instead to general health information classes, or classes teaching only safer sex. Among those assigned to comprehensive sex-education classes, covering both abstinence and safer sex, about 42 percent began having sex.


Is our goal to reduce sex, or is it to reduce unwanted pregnancy and std's?

I vote for the latter. Sex is fun.

Our goal is to control women.

This is the attitude that is giving us trillion dollar deficits. You seem to have this mistaken belief that the people in charge will always be small government types who will adhere to your beliefs. It won't happen. So in the real world, you have a choice: keep the government out of our personal lives, or have the government in our personal lives. The notion that wise legislators will keep it in check has proven to be false in every single experiment.

So R's need to make up their minds. Do they favor big government, or are they willing to allow that just because other people might want to do things that may be offensive to the religious doesn't mean that thing should be illegal.

That's the real world choice. The R's are the ones hijacking a phrase.

I had to think about this one for a while. Basically, I feel like the Democrats platform is a mess for completely different reasons. Mainly, it is the disconnect between warm fuzzies and reality. They don't see the disconnect between wanting to create jobs and things like raising business taxes, raising minimum wage, etc. Most items in their platform fall into the "in a perfect world this would be great" scenario, but in the real world is a major failure.

Also, the notion that Democrats can't pass their crazy ideas doesn't really hold up. They were weeks, and by some reports days, away from permanently destroying health care in the US. We were saved only by a random death of a senator and an upset election in MA.

It took everything they had to ALMOST pass a bill that was a very far cry from what they originally wanted to do. With a supermajority. I wouldnt be quivering too bad that the Dems can get a lot done.

I agree that the Dem platform has its own problems.....but at least they stand for something tangible and consistent. The GOP is this weird hodge-podge of conflicting ideals.

You are coming from a perspective of allowing pretty much everything to be legal from prostitution to drugs so it's hard to allow for your idea to be the rational one.

I see it like I see capitalism, Sure I want it, but I think you need a little fit of socialism mixed in to prevent children working for 12 hours a day and pollution dumped into the underground water tables.

The Annie Rand view of capitalism is naive because it can't insert the reality that some people are evil and given free reign they will not rise to the level of appreciation that you have, they will exploit the system to the point of making it fail.

Saying a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body ignores the effects on society, and the future health of a culture. That's why anarchy doesn't work.

Saying that a law that says marriage is between a man and a woman is not a slippery slope to the government will control every avenue of your life.

Yet the GOP allows the pro-abortion people in it's party to speak at their national convention, the dems refuse the pro-life members of their party to ever speak at their national convention.


Who's the more open to other's ideas?

gay people probably disagree with this statement.

I come at those for the same reason you (presumably) oppose housing projects and gun bans: they don't work in the real world and harm not only the people they were designed to help, but also the surrounding community. I would think that should matter for something. Republicans apparently would put some Utopian fantasy ahead of real world results.



So then you agree the government should be able to raise your children how the bureaucrats want?

The reality is that the reason children worked for 12 hours in factories is because the alternative was to work 16 hours on the farm. Banning children working that much endangered children by forcing them back to worse conditions, longer hours, and a lower standard of living. Rich suburbanites of today don't really understand what conditions were like at the dawn of the industrial revolution, so the thought of children working 12 hour days sounds shocking. Back then, it was a major improvement for everyone.



First of all, that is not Rand's view. Second, I'm not a huge fan of Rand, but appreciate what she did for rational thought. Third, the point of capitalism is that it channels both positive and negative impulses to the greater good. The only way people can exploit it is by committing force or fraud or through political corruption, and I don't know any philosophy that thinks that should be allowed.



I'm not sure why you would equate my beliefs to anarchy. I believe that people should not be able to harm those around them without their consent. This is a basic premise of libertarians. It is clearly NOT a premise of the Republicans, as they would deprive people of their means of making a living or their means of enjoying themselves even when nobody is involuntarily affected. Apparently, you would've even supported sending children back to their 16 hour days on the farm because they 12 hours days in much safer factories looks bad.

Freedom works. It really does, in the real world.

Well, we've had this discussion before. You present your side very well, I disagree with some of it, but agree in principle with you a lot more than I disagree.

Let's stick to making fun of those idiots on the left, no reason to waste time with the unteachables like me.

Good point... if the worst problem in the country was the difference between you and me, we'd all be in pretty good shape. It's sort of the Tea Party thing -- if you got down to nitty gritty details, there'd probably be little agreement on any particular issue, but everyone involved agrees on one thing -- we are moving rapidly in the wrong direction.

True and it was freighting to watch. They couldn’t get their own troops in line, they bribed a couple of keys votes, they ignored the independents and totally disregarded the Republicans, they tried their best to create a system that would bankrupt our financial system and are still attempting to tax two generations of unborn children…that is a busy year.



It is funny but as much as I was happy the Brown won in Mass the Democrats were on the verge of suicide and that would have been to watch…does the total failure of Harry, Nancy, Barak and the rest of thieves to finish what they started help or hurt them? I mean in the long it is better for the country on a financial level so I guess that is good, however, in the short term the landslide of change that would have happened in November may or may not still be on track…it will be interesting.



On a lighter note my 5th grader wrote a paper at school (public school even) that is hanging in the lobby as an example of top quality work…he managed to comment on the deficit spending, reference the fact that every child in the country is now over 50k in debt to our wonderful government and state that with some hard work Obama will be 4 year failure like Jimmy Carter…LOL the boy is smarter then I thought!! His teacher told me it was exceptional for his age and though she (socialist union member) didn’t agree with some of his points her husband (national sales rep) thought it was the best thing she had ever showed him in 20 years of her teaching!!!

He said "caucus"

Wait! Isn't that a mountain range in eastern Europe?

Still sounds funny.

Caucus...