• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Three wings of the GOP and DNC

B

BayToBay

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Lets start off with the weakest links.

The Religious Right - Santorum. These guys are a drain on the party and do more harm than good. They will likely lose the election for Romney due to their racial slurs, mysogyny and xenophobia. They want to go back to the 1950s. That is a path to certain destruction.

The Libertarians - Ron Paul. These are the intellectuals and the glue. Without them the GOP goes bankrupt and will lose. They are loyal to their principles and not the party. However, many have become intransigent. They must accept that the social safety will persevere and is probably needed. They must also accept that their are still some dangerous spots around the globe. They must accept that not all immigrants should be allowed entry. But they are mostly right. We need to restructure the social safety net to preserve it. We need to offer more legal paths to citizenship (not necessarily residence... citizenship). We need to be cautious of Iran, Syria, North Korea and even Putin. However, we can not let this be lead by the xenophobes that are willfully ignorant of other cultures.

NeoCons - Romney. These are the men in control. They are the establishment. They are deathly concerend about nuclear holocaust and there is some good reason for that. They are not stupid. They are quite brilliant but moved by fear of the idiots even the useful ones. The saber rattling of idiots like McCain work against them. They are pragmatists. They have learned and muted the McCain voices and those of the religious right. They are primarily concerned with winning and their standard bearer is always the one they believe to be most electable.

The left has the same wings in reverse.

Unionist and Minorities - Biden. This group is poorly informed but not as bad as the Repub idiots (the unionist are really dumb). They are xenophobes and fear change. However, they are also race baiters and homosexuals. This makes for an unstable foundation. Which is why the Dems have lost so much ground.

The Socialists - Obama. This group is filled with a lot of anti American sentiment. They are reverse xenophobes. They have blamed our religions, culture and our economic systems for our woes. However they are moderating due to the realities of Europe and here. They cannot avoid the fact that more centralized control is a losing path. They are also concerend with the environmental dangers and for good reason. However, their solutions are too rigid, authoritarian and centrally controlled to work.

The Internationalist. Hillary. These are the ones in control. They are pragmatists. They understand the dangers around the globe. They want to engage where possible and use diplomacy rather than isolationism and violent wars. They have learned that they need to involve other powers in the defense of their own regions because we cannot defend everyone.

Of course, one can be a mix of two, three or even all six. Most will identify with one group more than the other. I am a libertarian but a mix of all six.

You take the good, you take the bad,
you take them both and there you have
The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

Back to work.
 
Last edited:
BayToBay said:
Lets start off with the weakest links.

The Religious Right - Santorum. These guys are a drain on the party and do more harm than good. They will likely lose the election for Romney due to their racial slurs, mysogyny and xenophobia. They want to go back to the 1950s. That is a path to certain destruction.

The Libertarians - Ron Paul. These are the intellectuals and the glue. Without them the GOP goes bankrupt and will lose. They are loyal to their principles and not the party. However, many have become intransigent. They must accept that the social safety will persevere and is probably needed. They must also accept that their are still some dangerous spots around the globe. They must accept that not all immigrants should be allowed entry. But they are mostly right. We need to restructure the social safety net to preserve it. We need to offer more legal paths to citizenship (not necessarily residence... citizenship). We need to be cautious of Iran, Syria, North Korea and even Putin. However, we can not let this be lead by the xenophobes that are willfully ignorant of other cultures.

NeoCons - Romney. These are the men in control. They are the establishment. They are deathly concerend about nuclear holocaust and there is some good reason for that. They are not stupid. They are quite brilliant but moved by fear of the idiots even the useful ones. The saber rattling of idiots like McCain work against them. They are pragmatists. They have learned and muted the McCain voices and those of the religious right. They are primarily concerned with winning and their standard bearer is always the one they believe to be most electable.

The left has the same wings in reverse.

Unionist and Minorities - Biden. This group is poorly informed but not as bad as the Repub idiots (the unionist are really dumb). They are xenophobes and fear change. However, they are also race baiters and homosexuals. This makes for an unstable foundation. Which is why the Dems have lost so much ground.

The Socialists - Obama. This group is filled with a lot of anti American sentiment. They are reverse xenophobes. They have blamed our religions, culture and our economic systems for our woes. However they are moderating due to the realities of Europe and here. They cannot avoid the fact that more centralized control is a losing path. They are also concerend with the environmental dangers and for good reason. However, their solutions are too rigid, authoritarian and centrally controlled to work.

The Internationalist. Hillary. These are the ones in control. They are pragmatists. They understand the dangers around the globe. They want to engage where possible and use diplomacy rather than isolationism and violent wars. They have learned that they need to involve other powers in the defense of their own regions because we cannot defend everyone.

Of course, one can be a mix of two, three or even all six. Most will identify with one group more than the other. I am a libertarian but a mix of all six.

You take the good, you take the bad,
you take them both and there you have
The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

Back to work.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't a socialist and this "anti-American sentiment" crap is just what Limbaugh has been spoonfeeding you. How arrogant people get, to believe they hold a monopoly on loving their country.

You aren't a liberal. Stop letting people who aren't liberals tell you what liberals believe.
 
Deuce said:
Obama isn't a socialist and this "anti-American sentiment" crap is just what Limbaugh has been spoonfeeding you. How arrogant people get, to believe they hold a monopoly on loving their country.

You aren't a liberal. Stop letting people who aren't liberals tell you what liberals believe.
Click to expand...

You are an overly literal knee jerk reactionary like Limbaugh. I am not. Again, archetypes are useful.

Obama has grown. Clinton and Biden have grown. Paul has grown. Santorum has certainly not. Romney I am not so sure. He is hard to read but he is very smart and effective. He was always a moderate anyway.

Obama's roots are what I said they were.
 
BayToBay said:
You are an overly literal knee jerk reactionary like Limbaugh. I am not. Again, archetypes are useful.

Obama has grown. Clinton and Biden have grown. Paul has grown. Santorum has certainly not. Romney I am not so sure. He is hard to read but he is very smart and effective. He was always a moderate anyway.

Obama's roots are what I said they were.
Click to expand...

My biggest problem with both Obama and Romney/Ryan are their arrogance. Without signs of humility they are a danger.

Take Romney's response to the haircut charge. It is just boys being boys. Get over the terrorism he caused that other young man you little babies. It was all in fun, even if the other guy feared for his life. Romney was laughing. Wasn't he? Forget that villains laugh too, it is a clear sign that he was just joking. His response about the dog is similiar. He is far too arrogant for me. If he showed real regret, maybe...

Obama is similiar. Obama will likely win though, because he shows more humility.

The mark of Canaan is not skin color or shame alone. It is more about selfish pride (which is part of shame). One always becomes the other without repentance. Your temple is within your soul and your repentance is written on your face.

Ron Paul was visibly ashamed of his past mistakes. So much so that it weakens him so that he can barely raise his head. I forgive him because I must forgive myself.

For, buddhists consider the wheel of becoming. We must maintain a beginner's mind or we become blind.

All praises, I and I, puff puff. :)

Timschel.

I could use a millon Rand quotes.
 
Obama is a left leaning corporatist, not a socialist. America has few real socialists, and almost none who hold national office. Bernie Sanders is about as close as we get.
 
BayToBay said:
Lets start off with the weakest links.

The Religious Right - Santorum. These guys are a drain on the party and do more harm than good. They will likely lose the election for Romney due to their racial slurs, mysogyny and xenophobia. They want to go back to the 1950s. That is a path to certain destruction.
Click to expand...

You lost me right here. I've never been entirely sure what the "Religious Right" is, but I reckon I'm a part of it because I believe in God and am also a conservative. What I'm not is a racist, self-loathing misogynist or xenophobe. I don't think Santorum is either.
 
nota bene said:
You lost me right here. I've never been entirely sure what the "Religious Right" is, but I reckon I'm a part of it because I believe in God and am also a conservative. What I'm not is a racist, self-loathing misogynist or xenophobe. I don't think Santorum is either.
Click to expand...

You are not paying attention to him. He absolutely hates Ron Paul and the libertarians. He blames them for his failure and is full of jealousy.

I once railed against Christians. No more. I am an atheist who was raised baptist and my first dream was to be a preacher. But I was too much of a little devil for that. I kept my faith, not just in God, or his son, but in his son's message

Believe in your God. Don't be too fearful of the Devil. Your God will protect you. That is the message of your savior. Don't be afraid of difference. The world is going to change no matter what. Again, we can fight for love or hate, either way we will die and become fertilizer for the future.
 
Helix said:
Obama is a left leaning corporatist, not a socialist. America has few real socialists, and almost none who hold national office. Bernie Sanders is about as close as we get.
Click to expand...

Meh. Obama is not much of a corporatist. Hes using government to subvert corporate power for his own party's enrichment.

Look at GM, its controlled primarily by its own union and the government. Meaning it exists to serve the union and government's current green agenda.

Look at pharma and the medical industry, they will now have government bureaucrats setting price controls and through that wage controls on medical caregivers and industries related to it. It will be ready for unionization.

Look at big Oil. Demonized to the point of rediculousness, big oil is about to lose basic tax breaks that exist for any company with capital investment. Their tax money goes almost directly to the green industry which is full of cronyism, and political payoffs. Subsidies and tax breaks for green companies were 4 to 5 times those for big oil.

Look at agriculture. Its being subsidized to the green industry agenda through ethanol. Ethanol is bad for engines because it makes them run hotter. Its bad for consumers because it takes more energy to produce usable ethanol gasoline than it gives back and its subsidized all around---from gas stations to farmers to production.

Look at the housing industry. We have bailouts targeted to consumers and homeowners that often have no basis to get back on their feet and make the mortgage worthwhile. We have banks that are recieving next to no penalty for the bad loans they did make and often were bailed out because of those same loans. But you have government policy that encourages such loans. If you cant afford the house, you cant afford it---rent until you do and only buy what you qualify for and drop 10% down or dont bother getting into the home with no equity. We we got away from that as a basic policy Ill never know, its rediculous to think people will stay in homes if they have nothing in the game. I dont get how Obama criticizes big banks when hes been their biggest enabler.
 
God or Christ is your northstar. It does not matter if you ever reach either. Try to and they will welcome you. Try to hard to fight the Devil and he will welcome you.

Use the force. :)
 
OpportunityCost said:
Meh. Obama is not much of a corporatist. Hes using government to subvert corporate power for his own party's enrichment.

Look at GM, its controlled primarily by its own union and the government. Meaning it exists to serve the union and government's current green agenda.

Look at pharma and the medical industry, they will now have government bureaucrats setting price controls and through that wage controls on medical caregivers and industries related to it. It will be ready for unionization.

Look at big Oil. Demonized to the point of rediculousness, big oil is about to lose basic tax breaks that exist for any company with capital investment. Their tax money goes almost directly to the green industry which is full of cronyism, and political payoffs. Subsidies and tax breaks for green companies were 4 to 5 times those for big oil.

Look at agriculture. Its being subsidized to the green industry agenda through ethanol. Ethanol is bad for engines because it makes them run hotter. Its bad for consumers because it takes more energy to produce usable ethanol gasoline than it gives back and its subsidized all around---from gas stations to farmers to production.

Look at the housing industry. We have bailouts targeted to consumers and homeowners that often have no basis to get back on their feet and make the mortgage worthwhile. We have banks that are recieving next to no penalty for the bad loans they did make and often were bailed out because of those same loans. But you have government policy that encourages such loans. If you cant afford the house, you cant afford it---rent until you do and only buy what you qualify for and drop 10% down or dont bother getting into the home with no equity. We we got away from that as a basic policy Ill never know, its rediculous to think people will stay in homes if they have nothing in the game. I dont get how Obama criticizes big banks when hes been their biggest enabler.
Click to expand...

wikipedia said:
Liberal corporatism refers to the application of economic corporatism by liberal political parties and organizations, that recognizes the bargaining interests of multiple groups within society, such as in the business, labour, and agricultural sectors and licenses them to engage in bargaining over economic policy with the state.[1] Liberal corporatism is often in conflict from proponents of liberal pluralism that opposes the granting of power to organized interest groups.[1] English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill supported corporatist-like economic associations as needing to predominate in society to create equality for labourers and give them a voice in management through democratic economic rights.[2] Unlike a number of other forms of corporatism, liberal corporatism does not reject capitalism or individualism, but believes that the capitalist firm is a social institution that requires its managers to go beyond achieving the bottom line, by recognizing the needs of their members.[3] This liberal corporatist ethic was similar to Taylorism but called for democratization of the capitalism firm.[3] Liberal corporatists believed that inclusion of all members in the election of management would bring them into the process of management and in effect "reconcile ethics and efficiency, freedom and order, liberty and rationality".[3]

Liberal corporatism was an influential component of the progressivism in the United States that has been referred to as "interest group liberalism".[4] The support by labour leaders' advocacy of liberal corporatism of the U.S. progressives is believed to have been influenced by an attraction to the syndicalism and particularly the anarcho-syndicalism at the time in Europe.[4] In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labour cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Fordism and Keynesianism.[5] Liberal corporatism is commonly supported by proponents in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.[1]
Click to expand...

Liberal corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this fits much more closely than the generic socialism label.

and i'm basically referring to what i imagine he believes. he has governed center left. i realize in the microcosm of the American political spectrum, those who oppose him consider him far left, but there are many hundreds of miles of left to the left of Obama on the political spectrum, and he's not even governing to the far left of the American spectrum. think about the PPACA debate. Obama settled for and signed the PPACA, which doesn't even have a public option.
 
I'm amused with the idea that the Libertarians are the intellectuals, but the neoconservatives-a primarily intellectual tendency, are not. I understand, you wanted to promote your wing, the libertarians, at the expense of everyone else. But let's be honest. You conflate the designations, make loose assumptions of labels, and decide who is worthy and who is not-based on silly assumptions.
 
BayToBay said:
Lets start off with the weakest links.

The Religious Right - Santorum. These guys are a drain on the party and do more harm than good. They will likely lose the election for Romney due to their racial slurs, mysogyny and xenophobia. They want to go back to the 1950s. That is a path to certain destruction.

The Libertarians - Ron Paul. These are the intellectuals and the glue. Without them the GOP goes bankrupt and will lose. They are loyal to their principles and not the party. However, many have become intransigent. They must accept that the social safety will persevere and is probably needed. They must also accept that their are still some dangerous spots around the globe. They must accept that not all immigrants should be allowed entry. But they are mostly right. We need to restructure the social safety net to preserve it. We need to offer more legal paths to citizenship (not necessarily residence... citizenship). We need to be cautious of Iran, Syria, North Korea and even Putin. However, we can not let this be lead by the xenophobes that are willfully ignorant of other cultures.

NeoCons - Romney. These are the men in control. They are the establishment. They are deathly concerend about nuclear holocaust and there is some good reason for that. They are not stupid. They are quite brilliant but moved by fear of the idiots even the useful ones. The saber rattling of idiots like McCain work against them. They are pragmatists. They have learned and muted the McCain voices and those of the religious right. They are primarily concerned with winning and their standard bearer is always the one they believe to be most electable.

The left has the same wings in reverse.

Unionist and Minorities - Biden. This group is poorly informed but not as bad as the Repub idiots (the unionist are really dumb). They are xenophobes and fear change. However, they are also race baiters and homosexuals. This makes for an unstable foundation. Which is why the Dems have lost so much ground.

The Socialists - Obama. This group is filled with a lot of anti American sentiment. They are reverse xenophobes. They have blamed our religions, culture and our economic systems for our woes. However they are moderating due to the realities of Europe and here. They cannot avoid the fact that more centralized control is a losing path. They are also concerend with the environmental dangers and for good reason. However, their solutions are too rigid, authoritarian and centrally controlled to work.

The Internationalist. Hillary. These are the ones in control. They are pragmatists. They understand the dangers around the globe. They want to engage where possible and use diplomacy rather than isolationism and violent wars. They have learned that they need to involve other powers in the defense of their own regions because we cannot defend everyone.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a ridiculous list of archetypes. Let's go through all of the problems here:

1) The racial slurs and xenophobia (and to a lesser extent the misogyny) are not just the Religious Right...they are endemic to ALL branches of the Republican Party, and many Democrats as well.
2) The idea that the libertarians are the "intellectual" wing of the Republican Party is both sad and laughable. They are arguably the LEAST intellectual group of either party. I mean, if your only solution to everything is to repeat the dogma "get the government out and let the market decide," it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for intellectual thought.
3) Romney is not a neocon. I doubt he ever even thought about foreign policy before he started running for president, and he certainly conveys the impression that he doesn't really give a damn about it. Romney is a part of the money-pushing wing of the GOP, which you failed to mention at all.
4) Your description of "unionists and minorities" is racist, homophobic, and completely inaccurate. They are two mostly separate voting blocs within the Democratic Party, although there is some overlap.
5) The "socialist" wing of the Democratic Party doesn't actually exist, and if it did it certainly would not have Barack Obama as its archetype. This is more racist trolling.
6) The "internationalist" wing is actually a pretty accurate description, with a pretty accurate archetypal figure. Congrats, you got one right.


A more accurate listing of the "wings" of the parties would be something like this:

Republicans - God-pushers (Santorum), money-pushers (Romney), neoconservatives (McCain).
Democrats - Minorities (Jesse Jackson), organized labor (Sherrod Brown), highly-educated liberals (Hillary and Obama).

The libertarians aren't a wing of any party, and certainly not an "intellectual" wing of any party, except in their own minds.
 
Last edited:
I would amend the neoconservative designation significantly. First off, even though Santorum was heavily connected to the designation of neoconservative thanks to publications, I would be hesitant. Neoconservatism is a complicated tendency, and it embraces many segments of the Republican and some segments of the Democratic party: for domestic policy, for foreign policy, and for cultural beliefs. Neoconservatives can support cultural conservatism at the same time that some of them could be, even so far as Democratic Socialists for many intents and purposes. Neoconservatives can align themselves with the policies of Paul Ryan, but be cultural moderates or liberals. It all depends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom