• 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!

For Republicans

How do you feel about the Party?

  • I am over 40, and feel I no longer fit in.

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • I am under 40, and It's a great fit.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • I expect the party to become dominant again.

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • I am worried about the next few election cycles.

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • Who cares...Obama is Kenyan.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • I am not republian, but watnyed to mess with your poll.

    Votes: 12 44.4%
  • Total voters
    27
Cephus said:
Santorum isn't a conservative, he's a religious loony-toon.
Click to expand...

I think it more correct to say that he and I are conservatives, and you are a libertine masquerading as a conservative.
 
tecoyah said:
I am curious about a few things, and wish to poll our membership for enlightenment.
Click to expand...

I will not mess up your poll, I am a member of the Reform Party and I dislike both parties. Both major parties have sold their hearts and soul to huge money donors, special interests, corporations, lobbyists, Wall street Firms, and to anyone else who will give the money. Both parties use the business as usual method to govern and take care of their moneyed friends way before anything and anyone else. Both parties run up our countries debt like there is no tomorrow and both parties put off any hard decision until tomorrow afraid that if they actually did something to get our country back on fiscal solid ground it would cost them an election or two. In fact both parties think winning an election is more important than our countries future.

I do not find it surprising at all that both major parties affiliation among the electorate is at an all time low while those who call them independents are at an all time high. When 3/5th's of all American's have an unfavorable view of both parties, that should tell them something. But it doesn't.
 
Cephus said:
Santorum isn't a conservative, he's a religious loony-toon.
Click to expand...

I think when it comes to Santorum and folks like him, perhaps the classification of neo-conservative or social-conservative might apply. The third tenet of a tradition conservative is: Small Government - keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. I think the advent of the religious right in the late 70's has changed the meaning of what conservatism meant up to that point when religion really had no or very little role in politics.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is nothing except tradition to dictate that candidates must be professional politicians. One of the most ridiculous things about our gov't, especially at the federal level, is the extremely modest pay that these positions offer. A medical specialist makes more money and does not have to spend a year (or more) campaigning to get their job, which often requires a second home as well.

View attachment 67165831

The money in politics is not from direct compensation so it tends to attract those that already have lots of money and/or will use that "public service" position to get it "on the side". The big money in politics is simply required to campaign for a job that pays poorly compared to its demands for time and travel.
Click to expand...

But doesn't that make you pause and go 'hmmmm'? Most of these guys could make a lot more in the public sector, so why did they give it up to work for less money in Congress or the White House? Why would somebody raise and spend millions to get a job that pays a fraction of that? It sure as hell isn't because the huge majority of them thought they could make a difference. The truth is, they are making out like bandits, and if they can manage to get re-elected a few times, they will leave Washington multi-millionaires and set to make the big bucks for life.

I started a thread hoping to generate some discussion on Peter Schweizer's latest book Extortion: Unfortunately it didn't generate any interest, but if even a small fraction of that book is really accurate--and he WILL make a person a believer--it is a real eye opener for what the permanent political class in Washington is doing at our expense.
 
I am still a member of the republican party, but I see it as becoming the party of unlimited corporate power on one wing and complete religous theocracy on the other wing, I would like to see a return of the Eisenhower and Roosevelt type republicans.
 
I am a registered Republican, even though I'm a libertarian. Sometimes I'm flat out embarrassed by the Republican party antics but I always remind myself that I'm not an actual conservative.
 
Paleocon said:
The tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Which would be relevant except the federal government entwined itself into marriage rights and benefits. Once that happened states had limited power to regulate relationships between consenting adults.
 
Paleocon said:
I think it more correct to say that he and I are conservatives, and you are a libertine masquerading as a conservative.
Click to expand...

Or that you, like Santorum, have no clue what being a conservative is.
 
Perotista said:
I think when it comes to Santorum and folks like him, perhaps the classification of neo-conservative or social-conservative might apply. The third tenet of a tradition conservative is: Small Government - keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. I think the advent of the religious right in the late 70's has changed the meaning of what conservatism meant up to that point when religion really had no or very little role in politics.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that Nixon's Southern Strategy attracted fundamentalist southern Democrats to the party where they took over and have ruined it ever since. They are still liberals in conservative's clothing.
 
Cephus said:
Or that you, like Santorum, have no clue what being a conservative is.
Click to expand...

Do you regard conservatism as equivalent to classical liberalism?
 
Paleocon said:
Do you regard conservatism as equivalent to classical liberalism?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Conservatism is about small government, personal and fiscal responsibility and keeping the government out of the lives of the people, among other things. Santorum does not support that.
 
Cephus said:
Not necessarily. Conservatism is about small government, personal and fiscal responsibility and keeping the government out of the lives of the people, among other things. Santorum does not support that.
Click to expand...

Funny how two hundred years ago government non-involvement in social issues was universally regarded as anti-conservative. So while you personally aren't making up this idea of conservative you have, it is nevertheless a made-up idea.
 
Cephus said:
You have to remember that Nixon's Southern Strategy attracted fundamentalist southern Democrats to the party where they took over and have ruined it ever since. They are still liberals in conservative's clothing.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept and that may have some truth to it. But I was thinking more along the lines of religious organizations forming like Falwell's Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition for the express purpose attracting religious voters to the Republican Party.
 
Henrin said:
How can people that claim they want a small government support the things social conservatives do? Sorry, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For that matter, how can conservatives support the military complex, while at the same time wanting a small government? Again, there is no sense to it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Social Conservatism is the antithesis of limited government.
 
obvious Child said:
Exactly. Social Conservatism is the antithesis of limited government.
Click to expand...

Key word, limited. For many social conservatives certain aspects of society should have laws at the government level but want to limit government in other areas.
 
digsbe said:
Key word, limited. For many social conservatives certain aspects of society should have laws at the government level but want to limit government in other areas.
Click to expand...

Then it's not actual limited. Social Conservatism seek to legislate the very moral nature and behavior of people. You cannot call a government that gives free reign to venture capitalism but dictates what you can do in your private bedroom "limited." Nor can you call a government that seeks to return women to chattel "limited" because it has few regulations on environmental pollution. Would you call Iran a limited government? How about Saudi Arabia?

You cannot have strong social conservatism and a limited government unless you pervert the nature of the word limited to where you think economics are the only things that matter in the world. Which is odd coming from someone of your religious nature. When you seek to dictate by law what religious beliefs people are allowed to have, your government is not limited. Would you call a government based on Orwell's 1984 to be "limited" if it had low business regulations but had massive propaganda and belief laws?
 
Cephus said:
But every party out there is evil, including the Libertarians. You cannot vote for any professional politician and not vote for evil.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that anyone who runs for office, especially high office, has a case of egomania.

However, to say that all political parties are evil (i.e. green party, libertarian, constitutional, etc.) is a little bold. I usually relegate me 'evil' label to the corporately sponsored political parties.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The money in politics is not from direct compensation so it tends to attract those that already have lots of money and/or will use that "public service" position to get it "on the side". The big money in politics is simply required to campaign for a job that pays poorly compared to its demands for time and travel.
Click to expand...

That's what I've always laughed at the people who make a rally cry about cutting pay to people in congress. Take, for example, the two Senators from California that collectively represent approximately 20 million people each. I'd like to find one person in a leadership position at a company with 20 million people making what either of those two make.
 
Perotista said:
Interesting concept and that may have some truth to it. But I was thinking more along the lines of religious organizations forming like Falwell's Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition for the express purpose attracting religious voters to the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

It was all part of the same thing, all of those things came out of the hard-core religious Southern former-Democrat scene. Lots of fundamentalists abandoned the Democrats over issues like abortion and civil rights and were ripe for the picking by the Republicans who just wanted votes.
 
Starbuck said:
I'd argue that anyone who runs for office, especially high office, has a case of egomania.

However, to say that all political parties are evil (i.e. green party, libertarian, constitutional, etc.) is a little bold. I usually relegate me 'evil' label to the corporately sponsored political parties.
Click to expand...

To some degree, that's accurate, but to get into office and get anything done, you have to play the political game and that is inherently corrupting. All political parties today, and it's not always been that way, but they want power to push their agenda. None of them are interested in representing the American people, they only want to push their party's platform, for the purpose of gaining additional power and money for their party. I'd say that's pretty damn evil in a representative democracy.
 
Cephus said:
To some degree, that's accurate, but to get into office and get anything done, you have to play the political game and that is inherently corrupting.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this, at least in the current political climate. However, I'd imagine that if either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson were somehow elected to the office of President in 2012, they would by direct executive power make some pretty drastic changes.

In congress, its all about garnering votes and/ or consensus. In an executive position (i.e. governor/ president) it's all about wielding executive power. That is a power that doesn't always require consensus amongst corporate sponsors.

However, I'm pretty sure that if either of them were elected, we'd be reading about an assassination in short order.

depressing. . .
 
Cephus said:
All political parties today, and it's not always been that way, but they want power to push their agenda. None of them are interested in representing the American people, they only want to push their party's platform, for the purpose of gaining additional power and money for their party.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that there's been corruption right along. It just seems more obvious today, with the advent of mass-marketing. I think the theory behind contemporary corruption is the same as the theory behind what we've seen in the past.

However, I think that the major difference is the ability of dollars to purchase votes. In the past, candidates had to put in a lot more effort to get elected, without the presence of major advertising campaigns. Now a candidate can get elected and/ or discredited through no effort of their own (Swift Boat Veterans anyone), largely due to corporate dollars.

When dollars = votes, we've got a problem.



Cephus said:
I'd say that's pretty damn evil in a representative democracy.
Click to expand...

Whole heartedly agree.
 
Starbuck said:
I do agree with this, at least in the current political climate. However, I'd imagine that if either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson were somehow elected to the office of President in 2012, they would by direct executive power make some pretty drastic changes.
Click to expand...

And then Congress would override anything they do and stonewall them throughout their administration. They'd leave office without accomplishing a damn thing.
 
Starbuck said:
Honestly, I'm pretty sure that there's been corruption right along. It just seems more obvious today, with the advent of mass-marketing. I think the theory behind contemporary corruption is the same as the theory behind what we've seen in the past.

However, I think that the major difference is the ability of dollars to purchase votes. In the past, candidates had to put in a lot more effort to get elected, without the presence of major advertising campaigns. Now a candidate can get elected and/ or discredited through no effort of their own (Swift Boat Veterans anyone), largely due to corporate dollars.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just corporate dollars though, all of the PACs are just as bad. I think we need to remove the monetary component from campaigning, make it illegal for anyone, businesses or individuals alike, to donate a single dime to any political campaign. People can donate to the process, not to the individual politicians and the politicians cannot use any of their own money either. At a certain point in the campaign, everyone legally registered to run gets an equal cut of the pie and no more.

When dollars = votes, we've got a problem.
Click to expand...

But I don't think that's the whole problem. The problem is that we've got agendas vying for control, not people trying to represent the will and wishes of the people. Most politicians couldn't care less what the people want, they're just trying to feather their own nests and get re-elected so they can keep on the power and money train for another term. Until we change that, nothing else matters.
 
tecoyah said:
I am curious about a few things, and wish to poll our membership for enlightenment.
Click to expand...

The Chairman of the local Republican Party would have voted for Option 5. The Republican Party has currently been hi-jacked by a bunch of ideological crazies who think that they can change the world. They have no interest in seeing a strong party. They are more interested in doing the right thing. They have no respect for the dirty nature of of human interaction. That's probably because these people were hermits just a few years ago. They'll wake up to reality soon enough and go away. I'm not worried too much. The Republican Party is going through some changes. It will be a positive thing once the crazies learn that they can't manipulate the Republican Party to do magic tricks. Magic tricks are for kid's birthday parties and movies. The political process isn't a movie where the good guy stands up for what he believes and the evil empire bows at his feet at the end.

In the real world the evil empire will take your freaking head off. It's better to be the one in power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom