A Question for the Bluers

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

As a moderate I prefer to choose the best man for the job rather than voting against the worst. If I thought there was a moderate or right center conservative who had a real plan and had good ideas and information to support them I would vote for him in a heart beat.

you mean if the GOP became a moderate party, would i vote for them? sure.

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

Well, include worker protections and social safety nets, and I would.

samsmart said:

Well, include worker protections and social safety nets, and I would.

Click to expand...

well, he did say fiscal sanity, which is code for cut medicare/welfare to the bone .

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

If the GOP actually had the policies they claim i would be more temopted to vote for them now. They are not the small government party. they simply want to spend more on foreign imperialism, the military, and corporate welfare. There is nothing fiscally sane about the drug war, Iraq war, afganistan war, and all the other bull**** they waste money on. We have a strong defense, but the reps are bothered with defending isreal and battling with the middle east. The US is here, and if they started worrying about actually defending the US i would be much more into them.

It would also be nice if they recognized this is not a christian country and stopped trying to jam biblical morals down everyone's throat. It is expensive and it is also dying in popularity. However, if there was an actual party that promoted liberties for americans and focused on efficient government I would love to vote for them. I do see a necessity for certain government intervention especially in protections for the working and lower classes from the unregulated greed of corporations. i also see a need for at least some regulation on contracts made by insurance companies to make sure they provide for their customers as required by their contract with their customers, and providing huge fines for insurers who violate their own contracts in an attempt to avoid payment. I don't consider small government to necessarily be good government either. If you want to bring up some specifics i could speak on those, but if you just want to cut things to make smaller government i see problems in that thoughtless idea.

samsmart said:

Well, include worker protections and social safety nets, and I would.

Click to expand...

What worker protections and social safety nets?

roflpublican said:

well, he did say fiscal sanity, which is code for cut medicare/welfare to the bone .

Click to expand...

No, it means living within our means.

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

I don't think I can vote for either party ever again. I truly believe the #1 threat to this country is the "team sports mentality" that both of the major parties have their followers adhere to for their own personal gains.

I would be much happier of the GoP did this through because they would win more, which would give the country a more even battleground.

spanky said:

No, it means living within our means.

Click to expand...

but only when a democrat is in office, right? or is an illegal war in iraq based on lies told to the US congress compatible with 'fiscal responsibility/living within our means'?

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

The devil is always in the details. Small as defined as what? Low taxes on who? Fiscal sanity including no social security or medicare? Strong defense at the cost of social security and medicare? Social issues are not the end all be all. Bottom line is the way the GOP is currently organized compromising on abortion, gay rights and immigration is not possilbe.

roflpublican said:

View attachment 67137494

but only when a democrat is in office, right? or is an illegal war in iraq based on lies told to the US congress compatible with 'fiscal responsibility/living within our means'?

Click to expand...

A strong defense doesn't mean being the world's policeman.

smb said:

The devil is always in the details. Small as defined as what? Low taxes on who? Fiscal sanity including no social security or medicare? Strong defense at the cost of social security and medicare? Social issues are not the end all be all. Bottom line is the way the GOP is currently organized compromising on abortion, gay rights and immigration is not possilbe.

Click to expand...

It is a theoretical proposition. If you cannot deal in theoreticals then don't play.

I would consider voting for a GOP candidate if the party would stop picking douche bags to represent them.

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it’s basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along…

Click to expand...

…they would not only be wizards, since “strong defense” is code word for “big gubmint spending in what I want”, they would be quite different from the current GOP.

A big chunck of the GOP’s problem, and my issue with them, is that “fiscal sanity” got tossed overboard a number of decades back. It was last sighted getting the cement overboots treatment by Ronald Reagan.

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

it is my belief that because of our nation's political design, our long term national stability depends on oscillation between the two halves of the duopoly. i look at it a bit like the minor steering corrections we all make while driving. this theory influenced my votes in 2008 and 2012; i simply didn't feel like it was time to continue (in 2008) or to turn back to (in 2012) neoconservatism. in the future, a rightward correction may actually be beneficial; i feel that this was the case in 1980. by 1992, it was time for a correction, and voters seemed to sense this intuitively.

so to address the question, yes, if the GOP dropped the anti-homosexual platform and pseudo-xenophobia, i would be more likely to consider them for a vote when i feel that the country needs to oscillate rightward.

spanky said:

It is a theoretical proposition. If you cannot deal in theoreticals then don't play.

Click to expand...

Even theoretical propositions need to be at least somewhat specific and not complete generalizations.

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

Until the i fluence of money on our politics is addressed, I won't be able to vote Rep.

Because as it is, politicians work for their sponsors first and their constituents second or worse.

Much Dem money comes from campaign i vestors whose interests are served by my having enough money to buy their products/services (think car insurance companies).

The money that sponsors the right tends to be more "global", so can be sold to anybody, or things like energy that you can't live without.

Thats aside from the Wall St money that practically owns our govt. Both sides.

samsmart said:

Well, include worker protections and social safety nets, and I would.

Click to expand...

So dump all rightwing values and give in your liberal agenda. Got it.

American said:

So dump all rightwing values and give in your liberal agenda. Got it.

Click to expand...

So right-wingers don't want workers or people who want to be secured by a social safety net.

Fine.

Don't complain when you don't win elections then.

Rules of liberal politics:

#1 Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever compromise
#2 If you're asked to compromise, see Rule #1.

samsmart said:

So right-wingers don't want workers or people who want to be secured by a social safety net.

Fine.

Don't complain when you don't win elections then.

Click to expand...

We have safety nets and they are bankrupting the country. How many more do you want? Trouble is you expect the Right to give up all their beliefs and become liberals. BTW, you didn't win the House and lost other things. Get over your morning talking points.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...republican-governor-decades/story?id=17650799

American said:

So dump all rightwing values and give in your liberal agenda. Got it.

Click to expand...

What are right wing values?

American said:

We have safety nets and they are bankrupting the country. How many more do you want? Trouble is you expect the Right to give up all their beliefs and become liberals.

Click to expand...

Point out to me where I said I wanted more safety nets.

spanky said:

This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs lol;

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?

Click to expand...

I likely suffer from the same misconceptions of the right that you do of the left.... but, I for one think abortion and gay rights issues get far too much attention. I would never vote for anyone based on these issues. However, if a Republican candidate was in favor of national healthcare, social security and a reasonable safety net; wanted a strong national defense (but did not take that as a carte blanche endorsement to buy every defense system available so as to arm the US for land wars and foreign occupations); did not think diplomacy means a bigger army; was for a reasonable progressive tax system for individuals and corporations (likely at higher marginal rates than currently exist); saw the value in affordable and available education through college (with available loans and grants for those in need); believed that investing in and re-building US infrastructure was a worthy use of federal tax dollars; ... and would not try to legislate morality; he might get a look....

Republicans like this once existed, but not in 20 years....