Is political partisanship irrational ..

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The current candidates are neither Denethor or Sauron.  They are both diminished.  But Clinton is better than Trump, a minor leader of orcs.  Trump aligns with orcs.  Clinton, aligns with elves, though not one.

I could name some metrics by which the Turd Sandwich is better, and some by which the Giant Douche is better.  They are both awful.

One aligns with Orcs, the other aligns with Uruk-Hai.

[Hydra009]

Yesterday, NPR interviewed a professor of polisci/history at Boston College, Heather Cox, who spoke to this issue:

https://www.amazon.com/Make-Men-Free-History-Republican/dp/0465024319/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

She believes Trump is the end of a current cycle, or at least part of the end.  I'm personally not so sure, although she makes a fair case based on past cycles.  However, it's not necessarily true that past cycles always repeat.  They can spin off into something entirely different.  Wherever the Party is headed, the current leadership doesn't seem to want to let go of it's current form, but then that's probably always true.

I could see them changing direction or fracturing.  Lose enough elections and you're bound to change things, though it seems they're having no problems holding onto Congressional seats, unlike the White House.  So why change when you don't have to?

[SGOS]

I could see them changing direction or fracturing.  Lose enough elections and you're bound to change things, though it seems they're having no problems holding onto Congressional seats, unlike the White House.  So why change when you don't have to?

That's a good point.  I don't think she addressed that.

While the current situation seems like a bit of a crisis, I don't know how it compares to the situations during the past turning points.  I've heard for several years comments about the end of the Republican Party, but they keep doing well in congress, and during the part of my life where I got interested in politics (starting with Johnson), Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 years, Democrats for 24.

Things look pretty fubar right now, but it may not mean anything.  Actually, I thought that after Nixon, the GOP would be done for 50 years.  But they only lost the White House for a piddly 4 years under Carter, and then came back like gangbusters.

[Baruch]

I could see them changing direction or fracturing.  Lose enough elections and you're bound to change things, though it seems they're having no problems holding onto Congressional seats, unlike the White House.  So why change when you don't have to?

All politics is local ... the Rs have plenty of governor's mansions and state-houses.  People focus too much on the White House.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

All politics is local ... the Rs have plenty of governor's mansions and state-houses.  People focus too much on the White House.

For once we can actually agree on something . The real power has always been with the power of the purse which doesn't come from the executive office, it comes from congress downward into statehouses and governorships. One would think that 8 years of ineffective leadership from the wh would teach most democrats this lesson, but I fear we're in for at least another 4 years of having the same lesson beat into us as Democrats. The R's will probably lose the senate, but not the house and definitely not statehouses around the nation. Now if the R's continue to keep trying to put complete idiots in the wh that might change, but it's going to take far longer than anyone expects. When as few as 35% of the population actually votes on election days it's just telling someone else to decide for them.
It's like saying, "Here, you're the dumbest motherfucker in the room. You decide for everyone." 

[Jason78]

When there are two parties, one of which is made up almost entirely of lunatics, then siding with the sane party is rational.

So what do you do when both parties are made up almost entirely of lunatics?

[aitm]

I suspect after this debacle, the pubs do split into factions. both calling themselves pubs but the one side of ultra conservative religious nut jobs will find out pretty quick that they don't have the support they think they do and will fall apart in a couple years if that long. The moderates will recognize that there is such a thing as moderate and gain support  in the next year but the Trump and nuts like him won't be involved.... I hope.

[trdsf]

I could actually see myself siding with the Republicans on occasion if they reversed their Southern Strategy and adopted far more centrist views.  But at the moment, the naked theocratic views, in addition to a whole host of other issues, make them far too repulsive to support.  It would take a lot to fix that wagon, and they'd be practically unrecognizable afterwards, but it's possible.

I could see supporting the GOP as the party of Weicker and Anderson, and of Jerry Ford, Howard Baker, and a long line of moderate, sensible Republicans that used to be the backbone of the party, with whom you could civilly disagree and then come to a compromise.

Not as the absolutist Talebangelical party of Bush Jr and Cruz and Donnieboy and the teabaggers.  Never.  I would love to be alive a century from now to see what historians write about the party, beyond, "Seriously, what the fuck?"

[Baruch]

I used to only need Republicans, to reign in the wackier ideas of the Democrats.  But the price is too high, and they have just as many wacky ideas.  For other folks here, they want the Democrats to reign in the wackier ideas of the Republicans ... but I think they are in the same boat as I am.

[Cavebear]

Sauron not equal to Saruman ;-)  I think you meant Saruman (if you were quoting me).  Yes, Clinton supporters are like elves, but like the hideous picture of a Santa elf posted earlier.  Santa was a communist.

Saruman is fine.  Both Sauron and Saruman were evil.  And if you want to get into the weeds, they were both rather similar in origin, being Maya or similar and Children of Iluvatar.  I've read arguments on either side about just who the Wizards were.

Yes Santa is a Communist.  He gives freely to all children according to their needs (in theory). 

Was there some point you were struggling to make with that?

But that is not germane.

[Baruch]

Saruman is fine.  Both Sauron and Saruman were evil.  And if you want to get into the weeds, they were both rather similar in origin, being Maya or similar and Children of Iluvatar.  I've read arguments on either side about just who the Wizards were.

Yes Santa is a Communist.  He gives freely to all children according to their needs (in theory). 

Was there some point you were struggling to make with that?

But that is not germane.

Posters divert frequently, annoying readers who are more narrow minded.  In my case, but not just mine, I slip into metaphor.  But to my eyes, letting the "dead guys" off the hook, before Saruman was destroyed, left Gondor still at risk, and thus Strider had no reason to conclude their deal.  Being any kind of critic, is inflating, because we assume the role of god-like narrator.

[Cavebear]

I could go deeper into the LOTR and The Silmarillion.  But quite frankly with you as you have exposed yourself in other threads and fora, I don't care to. 

Good bye.

[widdershins]

Amusing video.  The Gary Johnson future isn't in the least bit realistic, though.  Neither Johnson nor Stein are really "president material".  Though having an idiot in office would still be better than having Trump in office, I don't think it would be better than having Clinton in office.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When Johnson doesn't have an answer, he admits it.  Trump makes stuff up, Hillary lies.  I think saying "I don't have an answer to that" is both honest and intelligent.

He was asked to name which foreign leader he most admired.  A libertarian admiring a head of state?  Might as well ask a vegetarian how he wants his steak cooked.

[Shiranu]

When Johnson doesn't have an answer, he admits it.  Trump makes stuff up, Hillary lies.  I think saying "I don't have an answer to that" is both honest and intelligent.

He was asked to name which foreign leader he most admired.  A libertarian admiring a head of state?  Might as well ask a vegetarian how he wants his steak cooked.

Admitting you have no idea about what you are talking about when you are running for one of the most powerful positions in the world is not in anyway admirable, it is horrifying. And he only admits it once he is prodded, and pussyfoots around.

He is as dishonest as Hillary, he is just too much of a blubbering idiot to hide it.