The Constitution Strikes Back

[Gravekeeper]

Starring Ted Cruz!

This is a real, actual thing currently featured on Brietbart from a guy that claims to be a "filmmaker" and have a "film studio" in Los Angeles named Highway 61 ( Because his other insane obsession is, inexplicably, Bob Dylan. ).

I will let him speak from his own fevered, diseased mind:

It was also obvious to me, from the perspective of a film maker, that Senator Cruz had the “it factor.” Cruz had the charisma, the charm, the chops, and the energy that make up a rock star persona that could propel him to the White House. And above all, I saw Ted Cruz as a unifying figure, not a divisive one as portrayed by the leftist media.

Other films* include: Obama Is a Communist, Obama Is A Communist II, Iran Is Going To Kill Us All Because Obama Is A Communist and Every Muslim Hates The Jews**

* May not be the actual titles.
** All music provided by a Bob Dylan tribute band. No, really. In addition to being a lunatic, this guy is the leader of a Bob Dylan tribute band. Which performs the films soundtracks.

[Rapscallion]

Not often I'm lost for words. However, that's quite within my scope of scorn.

Irrelevant wankfest by someone who put far too much effort into something that was so far beyond parody it came out the other side.

Does that work?

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Irrelevant wankfest by someone who put far too much effort into something that was so far beyond parody it came out the other side.

Poe's Law had a stroke.

[Hyena Dandy]

I saw Ted Cruz as a unifying figure, not a divisive one as portrayed by the leftist media.

Those two clauses disprove each-other. He can't be a unifying figure, if no-one is unified. I mean, Obama is politically fairly moderate, but that doesn't make him not a divisive figure in US politics.

[s_stabeler]

Those two clauses disprove each-other. He can't be a unifying figure, if no-one is unified. I mean, Obama is politically fairly moderate, but that doesn't make him not a divisive figure in US politics.

Obama's not divisive in the sense the word is usually used, though. (It usually means a politician that, essentially, is deliberately trying to make it an 'us against them' situation- a politician, in other words, who is claiming that if you don't agree with them- regardless of the topic- you are against them. The Tea Party- or at least, the part of the Tea Party that is actually in Congress at the moment- is a good example, since they, at every opportunity- or at least, it seems that way- try to insist the Government "compromises" with them, with the "compromise" being that they get their way, with them not needing to budge at all. (another example is some of the things done by Corbynites in the UK- to an extent, threatening Labour MPs with deselection of they voted to bomb Syria- albeit that if Labour party members really do feel that way, it is legitimate to deselect the MP in question- and, far worse, harassing MPs who they think will vote against them. (when it was claimed- either by Corbyn, or a fairly senior ally of his, that his opponents would have "nowhere to hide"- and that is a direct quote- it, to be blunt, became clear I would never be able to vote Labour unless there was a major change in the party. (no party leadership should harass their opponents))

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Obama is divisive because that's what politcs are in this country.

You can basically ignore most of the opinion of the article if you want, but what interests me is the study they brought up which is down a ways.

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9790764...discrimination

If the US is truly developing political party as an element of "othering" in excess of race and religion, there simply can't be a unifying leader up until the US faces an existential, imminent military threat and even then that's going to require that the US survives it.

Of course all of this requires that none of us consider that perhaps the majority is still centrist and may identify as Republican/Democrat but are largely abandoned by both groups. Hence it's always going to look divisive because no one presented in the general actually is centrist from the sense of what is politically average in the country. However, were someone like that elected, you would here Fox and MSNBC whining constantly and yet opinion polls showing approval. Were Congress un-gerrymandered, I suspect you might see the same thing.

[s_stabeler]

It depends on how entrenched the differences get, but the USA seems, to me, to be headed for a crisis point. Specifically, for the USA to function, both parties must be willing to compromise on certain things. (Basically, with any particular bill, a political party really needs to identify three things: 1. what it ideally wants- if they get everything they want. 2. red-line issues- this is things that, ot the party, are so sacred they would rather see the bill fail entirely than see happen. They also, despite what the Tea Party thinks, should not be either the same as, or de facto the same as, the first list. 3. how far are they willing to compromise, and under what conditions? The issue is that, to the Tea Party- or at least, those that are in government- their ideal list is the same as their red-line list. It's why you get the "Tea Party Compromise" which is when the "Compromise" demanded is at best the side making the demand de facto getting what they wanted. (take the case when the Tea Partiers demanded the defunding of the ACA. Their aim was to cause the ACA to fail- since without funding- both for various obligations placed on individual states, and for the Federal Exchange (which, incidentally, seemed to be rushed for a reason. It was, since originally, there were supposed to be State Exchanges, except some states refused to establish them- forcing the Federal Government to either let the law fail, or step in to establish an exchange themselves- which is why it ended up rushed, since it was essentially done at the last minute.)- the law would fail- and rapidly- meaning it was a de facto repeal of the ACA, despite the failure of any previous attempt to repeal it. (mainly because, for most people, it IS at least an improvement, even if it isn't perfect))

More or less, if one party isn't willing to compromise on anything, then the Federal Government becomes paralysed. That is NOT a good thing. (while it's true the Federal Government can overreach itself, the solution is not to make it functionally be unable to do anything at all)

[Gravekeeper]

If the US is truly developing political party as an element of "othering" in excess of race and religion, there simply can't be a unifying leader up until the US faces an existential, imminent military threat and even then that's going to require that the US survives it.

Yeah, I've read those studies and its frankly kind of insane. Red/Blue may have not seen much eye to eye prior to 9/11 but these days holy fark. You can see the trend over time. It starts to really other post 9/11. The right goes righter, the left responds by distancing itself, the right goes even righter under this weird "the problem is we're not being conservative enough" thing.

Then the middle ground basically vanishes under years of the Party of No refusing to compromise on basically anything. Leading to the most useless and reviled congress in history. Yet people keep re-electing them anyway. Democratic governments simply cannot function without compromise and you can't compromise with extremists.

Yet you'd have to drown a puppy dressed like baby Jesus on national television to get tossed out of congress/senate. Even then, a third of the voters would claim it was "photoshopped" or some sort of acceptable allegory for how the federal government is drowning the Christ out of Christmas.

5 years later the same person would be back in politics enjoying renewed support as a born again redemption story.

Sorry, that went off the rails a bit. ;p