• 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!

The GOP Civil War: Choose a side.

Which side of the GOP will you support?


  • Total voters
    45
I think it's exciting because many on the right have voted for programs from the left now, understanding the constituents are not happy with their party. After ALL the money spent in this past election, many right wingers lost elections.
The constituents are a fickle lot. They aren't happy with Obama's programs either, if the polls are to be believed. After the last election, we have been told to believe the polls are absolutely true. That, I certainly can't answer. But there is sufficient doubt that I think we are in a state of political flux here right now. Events external to the current climate will probably have more to do with the outcome of all of this than not, and nobody knows what they will be. Patience is not a virtue endorsed by the political atmosphere here just now, so the sniping will continue - to no good end.
 
The constituents are a fickle lot. They aren't happy with Obama's programs either, if the polls are to be believed. After the last election, we have been told to believe the polls are absolutely true. That, I certainly can't answer. But there is sufficient doubt that I think we are in a state of political flux here right now. Events external to the current climate will probably have more to do with the outcome of all of this than not, and nobody knows what they will be. Patience is not a virtue endorsed by the political atmosphere here just now, so the sniping will continue - to no good end.


The republcian party is DESPERATELY trying to gather those its have disenfranchised. It is even trying to appeal to immigrants, while part of its party is pushing deportation of immigrants in the Central American regions but not the Chinese, Europeans, Slavic nations, etc.

The republicans are also trying to woo women, by reversing their votes on VAWA. However, the republicans have allowed the social tea partiers and their hatreds to infiltrate their party for decades. They won't recover from being labeled the party of the upper 1% for years.
 
The constituents are a fickle lot. They aren't happy with Obama's programs either, if the polls are to be believed. After the last election, we have been told to believe the polls are absolutely true. That, I certainly can't answer. But there is sufficient doubt that I think we are in a state of political flux here right now. Events external to the current climate will probably have more to do with the outcome of all of this than not, and nobody knows what they will be. Patience is not a virtue endorsed by the political atmosphere here just now, so the sniping will continue - to no good end.

Yes indeed, constituents are a fickle lot. I have made it a hobby of mine to study independent/swing voters ever since I worked and campaigned for Perot back in 92. This group is the fickle lot, not those who associate themselves with either of the two major parties. It is also very interesting to note that those who classify themselves as independents has grown from 30% during Perot’s time to 40% today. This backs up your statement about the over all populace not being happing with either parties doings or programs as you put it. There is a growing dislike for both parties, more so on the GOP side than the Democratic side as the latest Gallup Poll show only 28% of the electorate identify themselves with the Republicans and 32% with the Democrats.

What is interesting here is that Obama won by 4 points, the exact difference that is between the parties which mean independents split right down the middle, 50-50 for the republicans and democrats. In 2006 and 2008 independents went slightly for the democrats and in 2010 they went in a big way for the republicans and now we are back to an even split. This fickle group decides elections and which way they will go in 2014 is anybody’s guess at this time. But the bad new for the GOP is since they have less loyal members than the Democrats, they have to win around 53% of the independent vote to win. Democrats can win at least nationally by only gaining around 48% of this group.
 
The republcian party is DESPERATELY trying to gather those its have disenfranchised. It is even trying to appeal to immigrants, while part of its party is pushing deportation of immigrants in the Central American regions but not the Chinese, Europeans, Slavic nations, etc.

The republicans are also trying to woo women, by reversing their votes on VAWA. However, the republicans have allowed the social tea partiers and their hatreds to infiltrate their party for decades. They won't recover from being labeled the party of the upper 1% for years.

Actually both parties are the party of the upper 1% or I should say of corporations, wall street firms and special interests. If you look at the campaign donations from these groups, the democrats actually have a slight advantage. Corporations do not care which party wins, they just want the winner to owe them for all the cash they give. you would be surprised at how many of these wall street firms and corporations give to both parties. Most of their money will go to incumbents, they usually win, but they will still give money to the challengers just in case they win. This way no matter who wins, the winner still owes them.
 
The republcian party is DESPERATELY trying to gather those its have disenfranchised. It is even trying to appeal to immigrants, while part of its party is pushing deportation of immigrants in the Central American regions but not the Chinese, Europeans, Slavic nations, etc.

The republicans are also trying to woo women, by reversing their votes on VAWA. However, the republicans have allowed the social tea partiers and their hatreds to infiltrate their party for decades. They won't recover from being labeled the party of the upper 1% for years.
This use of franchise in it's various forms is troubling. The very idea that government can cure every social ill is flawed at the outset. Somewhere within that is wrapped up the insidious notion that life itself as it exists here is not worth living as it is. The result is a bunch of whining little children impatient with the advance of society at a pace that accommodates change from generation to generation, and not day to day. The GOP will go through some change to reshape it's ideas, and what role social issues have in the mix is yet to be determined. You may wish to label it this or that, and you might be efective, but only as far as the label is believable. You're stretching it, as the recent sequester flubub has shown. Noam Chomsky? Really?
 
Yes indeed, constituents are a fickle lot. I have made it a hobby of mine to study independent/swing voters ever since I worked and campaigned for Perot back in 92. This group is the fickle lot, not those who associate themselves with either of the two major parties. It is also very interesting to note that those who classify themselves as independents has grown from 30% during Perot’s time to 40% today. This backs up your statement about the over all populace not being happing with either parties doings or programs as you put it. There is a growing dislike for both parties, more so on the GOP side than the Democratic side as the latest Gallup Poll show only 28% of the electorate identify themselves with the Republicans and 32% with the Democrats.

What is interesting here is that Obama won by 4 points, the exact difference that is between the parties which mean independents split right down the middle, 50-50 for the republicans and democrats. In 2006 and 2008 independents went slightly for the democrats and in 2010 they went in a big way for the republicans and now we are back to an even split. This fickle group decides elections and which way they will go in 2014 is anybody’s guess at this time. But the bad new for the GOP is since they have less loyal members than the Democrats, they have to win around 53% of the independent vote to win. Democrats can win at least nationally by only gaining around 48% of this group.
I think you've made a very accurate assessment here.
 
The republcian party is DESPERATELY trying to gather those its have disenfranchised. It is even trying to appeal to immigrants, while part of its party is pushing deportation of immigrants in the Central American regions but not the Chinese, Europeans, Slavic nations, etc.

The republicans are also trying to woo women, by reversing their votes on VAWA. However, the republicans have allowed the social tea partiers and their hatreds to infiltrate their party for decades. They won't recover from being labeled the party of the upper 1% for years.

The Tea Partiers are a relatively new group, not decades old as you state, and they were voted into office by their constituents to do exactly what they're doing...trying to slow down the overreaching federal government.

And let's not conveniently overlook the fact that there are also very wealthy Democrats that are in the one percent group that you denigrate, and a lot of them are in Congress! :(
 
The republcian party is DESPERATELY trying to gather those its have disenfranchised. It is even trying to appeal to immigrants, while part of its party is pushing deportation of immigrants in the Central American regions but not the Chinese, Europeans, Slavic nations, etc.

The republicans are also trying to woo women, by reversing their votes on VAWA. However, the republicans have allowed the social tea partiers and their hatreds to infiltrate their party for decades. They won't recover from being labeled the party of the upper 1% for years.

The term "social tea partiers" is an oxymoron; the tea party movement is essentially libertarian and fiscal, without a great deal of social baggage. The attempt to tie social issues to the tea party is just lefty propaganda. As for the 1%, I suspect as many are Dems as Repubs.:cool:
 
The Tea Partiers are a relatively new group, not decades old as you state, and they were voted into office by their constituents to do exactly what they're doing...trying to slow down the overreaching federal government.

And let's not conveniently overlook the fact that there are also very wealthy Democrats that are in the one percent group that you denigrate, and a lot of them are in Congress! :(

Here you go POL, the breakdown by party in congress

73 House Democrats are millionaires
101 House Republicans are millionaires
37 Senate Democrats are millionaires
30 Senate Republicans are millionaires
 
The term "social tea partiers" is an oxymoron; the tea party movement is essentially libertarian and fiscal, without a great deal of social baggage. The attempt to tie social issues to the tea party is just lefty propaganda. As for the 1%, I suspect as many are Dems as Repubs.:cool:

It's strange to see the Left complaining more about the Tea Party than the Republicans are. You would almost have to think they don't like them, and are concerned that their movement might harm the Republican Party. Yeah, that's probably why they want them to go away! :yes:
 
Here you go POL, the breakdown by party in congress

73 House Democrats are millionaires
101 House Republicans are millionaires
37 Senate Democrats are millionaires
30 Senate Republicans are millionaires

Thanks, Pero.

It looks close enough to me to challenge any foolish talking points in the future! :)
 
Thanks, Pero.

It looks close enough to me to challenge any foolish talking points in the future! :)

Thanks to both of you!

What jumps out to me is 55% of congress being millionaires

Is it any wonder that they don't care what their policies do

to us,the working or retired classes?:mad:

Congress is where Obama should practice his class warfare!:rantoff:
 
Thanks to both of you!

What jumps out to me is 55% of congress being millionaires

Is it any wonder that they don't care what their policies do

to us,the working or retired classes?:mad:

Congress is where Obama should practice his class warfare!:rantoff:

OH, BHO couldn't do that! Half his party is already upset with him for one reason or another... :)
 
I feel that you insulted me with the term RINO. I am definitely not a Republican in Name Only and I believe that the libertarians and Tea partiers are exactly that.

What is the difference between Tea Party and Neocon?

Tea parties orginally were - and mostly are, despite the infestation by various bachmanns - a populist coalition promoting libertarian ideas.

Neocons are basically elitist leftists who had changed their targets, but not their methods or general worldview.

It is most obvious in foreign policy, where wise and well-meaning invaders are supposed to be able to control (or even build from a scratch) enormously complex and unfamiliar systems ("nation-building"), but it also makes you think about the giant expansion of domestic programs and contempt for fiscal discipline that characterized much of the Bush Jr tenure.

Let me quote the Mr.Neoconservative himself, Irving Kristol:

"[Neocons] are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government [...]

The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention
"

(The Weekly Standard, Aug 25, 2003)
 
With the exception of foreign policy, where their misadventures are well known and documented, I find the neocons to be effective allies and useful advocates. Their secular intellectualism brings rigor and high standards to their policy discussion. GWB's compassionate conservatism was not, in my view a product of neocon influence so much as an expression of evangelical charity. Looking at events realistically, I fear the big government ship sailed long ago and won't be returning to port anytime soon. I therefore focus on just a few things: strong defense, hard money and individual liberty. There are obviously other important issues, but those three make up my critical list.:cool:
 
now i suppose we could spend some time debating what "engaged in combat" means, but i'm reasonably convinced that there aren't any plans to kill me by drone for complaining about **** on the internet, or for marching around with a sign, although i find signs tacky, and i abhor bumper stickers.
Just make sure if you do the marching around with a sign thing your groups keeps about 300m dispersion amongst themselves. This will cut down on casualties :2razz:
 
Is it possible to side with the Libertarians and not the TEA Party?
Very. The Tea Party, though it is making a move back to the Libertarian side, is simply the redneck division of the GOP right now. Slowly but surely people like Rand Paul are moving it back to it's roots. It's disappointing to see the turn that the Tea Party took from it's roots of an anti-Bush, grass roots movement.
 
Very. The Tea Party, though it is making a move back to the Libertarian side, is simply the redneck division of the GOP right now. Slowly but surely people like Rand Paul are moving it back to it's roots. It's disappointing to see the turn that the Tea Party took from it's roots of an anti-Bush, grass roots movement.
Redneck division, huh? I'm taking my battalion and going home. I'm not taking that lying down, unless it's on the couch at home. With a beer.
 
The term "social tea partiers" is an oxymoron; the tea party movement is essentially libertarian and fiscal, without a great deal of social baggage. The attempt to tie social issues to the tea party is just lefty propaganda. As for the 1%, I suspect as many are Dems as Repubs.:cool:

Hardly. That's the disarray of the republican/tea party.

Tea Party anti-abortion ad too graphic for YouTube but not TV

Tea Party anti-abortion ad too graphic for YouTube but not TV

Read more: Tea Party anti-abortion ad too graphic for YouTube but not TV


Anti-abortion Tea Party congressman demands mistress get an abortion

Tea Party Congressman Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee is facing national scrutiny because damning evidence has surfaced which implicates him in adultery and shows him negotiating with his sexual partner outside of his marriage to have an abortion.

DesJarlais was swept into office along with many other Tea Party candidates in the 2010 Midterm elections. The congressman ran on a platform of being anti-abortion, pro-god, and pro-morality. Now it seems that DesJarlais, a registered physician, is at odds with his own political platform.

This story was originally broken by The Huffington Post. The unknown female in question was actually a patient of the good doctor, who previously has been accused of holding a gun in his mouth for "hours in one instance." However, his alleged suicidal fantasies are not the purpose of this column. Court transcripts plainly showcase the hypocrisy of the morally superior Congressman:

"DesJarlais: You told me you'd have an abortion, and now we're getting too far along without one.

Woman: You told me you would have time to go with me and everything.

Tea Party Nation: Gay Equality will 'Turn Marriage into a Freak Show' | Right Wing Watch

Tea Party Nation: Gay Equality will 'Turn Marriage into a Freak Show'
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 7/31/2012 2:15 pm

Tea Party Nation’s Judson Phillips told members in an email today that their movement cannot avoid the issue of same-sex marriage, as it threatens to destroy the family, replace freedom with anarchy and “turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger.”

Gay marriage is often identified as a social issue and many in the conservative and Tea Party movement say leave social issues alone.

While we can have that debate as to whether we should include social issues or not, this is an issue that is not purely a social issue.

WANTING something to be representative of something doesn't make it so. The tea party has a LONG list of social issues they vote on.
 
With the exception of foreign policy, where their misadventures are well known and documented, I find the neocons to be effective allies and useful advocates. Their secular intellectualism brings rigor and high standards to their policy discussion. GWB's compassionate conservatism was not, in my view a product of neocon influence so much as an expression of evangelical charity. Looking at events realistically, I fear the big government ship sailed long ago and won't be returning to port anytime soon. I therefore focus on just a few things: strong defense, hard money and individual liberty. There are obviously other important issues, but those three make up my critical list.:cool:

It's neoliberal

Neoliberalism from Reagan to Clinton :: Monthly Review

. . .

The book’s central indictment is that President Clinton, in submitting his welfare, budget, and tax bills from 1995-1997, “signaled surrender: the Reagan revolution was going to achieve its major goals.” The Reagan neoliberal program of small government, tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and monetarist financial policies was more than just consolidated. In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment, however modest and poorly implemented, to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was thus ended. A central redistributional bargain crumbled as well: the top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would further suffer the marginalization of deepening poverty. The bulk of the text is devoted to a compelling examination of the neoliberal “revolution in economic policy” against postwar Keynesian demand management and welfare policies. Meeropol emphasizes the policy continuity between Reagan and Clinton over the chimerical differences of presidential campaigns.

Meeropol’s story of the right-wing ascendancy begins in 1979 when Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker began one part of the economic counterrevolution against the New Deal. Volcker imposed the stringent monetarist anti-inflation policies that persisted into the 1990s. Formally, the Federal Reserve simply moved from the so-called targeting of interest rates according to aggregate demand conditions, to concentrate on controlling the aggregate movements of the money supply and letting the markets determine the rates. As a consequence of the tightening of money supply growth the prime rate rose to 12.5 percent by 1981, with the Fed fund rate eventually peaking at 19.1 percent. Rather than oppose such monetary policies, as administrations had done so often in the past, Reagan supported the Fed’s stance. According to Meeropol, monetary policy was now safely in the hands of neoliberal ideologues and financial interests.

Reagan’s tax and budgetary policies put in place the other part. In contrast to the sentiments of the New Deal, Reagan propounded that “the most important cause of our economic problems has been the government itself.” The cure prescribed combined tax cuts to increase market incentives and cuts in overall government spending (with the crucial exemption of the military). The Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981 began a long series of program cuts, and expanded means testing of entitlements, while introducing across-the-board tax cuts that favored the redistribution of income to the rich. The key measure, whose legacy continues to this day in a process of competitive taxation pressures between jurisdictions, was the Recovery Tax Act of 1981. It cut personal income tax brackets, particularly in the highest brackets, and accelerated capital depreciation, substantively “shifting the burden away from capital income.” Meeropol details other measures of the neoliberal counter-revolution of Reagan’s first term: tax bracket indexation, deregulation of monopolistic industries, reversal of equal employment initiatives, reduction of welfare benefits, and cuts to food stamps and other welfare supports.

. . .
 
Hardly. That's the disarray of the republican/tea party.

Tea Party anti-abortion ad too graphic for YouTube but not TV




Anti-abortion Tea Party congressman demands mistress get an abortion



Tea Party Nation: Gay Equality will 'Turn Marriage into a Freak Show' | Right Wing Watch



WANTING something to be representative of something doesn't make it so. The tea party has a LONG list of social issues they vote on.

The fact that some candidates and would-be leaders (of whom most people have never heard) may spout off has no bearing on the views of members of the tea party movement. They are useful only to lefties trying to propagate a false meme.:roll:
 
there is a civil war in the GOP it is between the wacko right-wing tea party types and moderates like Chris Christie.

Considering that Chris Christie was elected on the strength of tea parties, and does pretty much what they wanted him to do - successfully so far, and remains enormously popular with NJ tea parties...

Eh, that word, "idiots" that you have used repeatedly - isn't it usually used to describe people who, like, have no idea what they are talking about?

From the liberal New York Times:

"few would deny that he is a masterly speaker, and the ideal one to deliver the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention, the first at which the establishment will join the Tea Party insurgents who have both lifted the party and thrown it for a loop.

[...] But no politician speaks the unvarnished vernacular of the Tea Party better — pointing fingers at public sector unions, speaking of the need to make what he calls “the hard choices.”

While few politicians are better at staying on message, Mr. Christie also manages to seem unscripted, thrilling the Tea Party faithful who demand a leader who will not sugarcoat the truth
"


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/politics/christie-a-masterly-speaker-and-tea-party-pleaser.html
 

Not exactly. The neoliberals represent a strain of liberal thinking that reacted against both the feckless leftism of McGovern and the arid centrism of Carter. Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukakis were representative. Bill Clinton was their apogee; their current expression is to be found in the Democratic Leadership Council.

Neocons trace their ancestry (or their fathers' ancestry) to the far left or radical politics of the 20th century (see Horowitz, Kristol). Many have family connections to the old Partisan Review. Disproportionately Jewish, many are strongly pro-Israel.
:shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom