• 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!

Should The GOP Have A Moderate Wing?

Should The GOP Have A Moderate Wing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 61.1%
  • No

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • Total voters
    18
But that's exactly what I mean by visibly polarizing. Cephus is some guy on a web forum. He doesn't command the attention of millions of listeners.

No, but there are polarizing atheist figures who have made every effort to command the courts. And it's worked...cities have been known to tell little old lady's they can't have Christmas decorations on their doors for fear of law suits.

Millions of people do not do as he says. Olberman is a nobody in liberal circles. Cindy Sheehan is an afterthought with most liberals. The most polarizing figures on the left are the ones we're actually ashamed of.

It's not about how many millions listen to Olbermann or Rush. Rush does not lead the Republican party. Pelosi is an extremely polarizing figure and she is the speaker of the house right now.

I wouldn't know the name of the person that runs PETA or MSNBC but yet I know who Rupert Murdoch and Ted Haggard are.

Yeah and I am well aware of who Soros and Ayers are...

The right takes pride in a far right nut like Coulter saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote(What the **** was that about anyways?). They hold Rush Limbaugh as some sort of Golden Boy behind the mic. The left ostracizes it's most polarizing and radical figures while the right supports theirs.

No, this isn't the case at all. Coulter is a joke and despite what the white house is telling you right now, Rush doesn't lead the party.
 
What two party system? The one where ANYONE can start a party, run on a platform and get elected? I hate when people say 'two party system' like there is some plot in place and nobody else can get elected.

I think his comment was more to the point of the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties. Third parties as they are called don't stand a prayers chance in hell of getting elected.

But there is a reason for that. People choose to be Democrat, Republican, Green, Socialist, etc. So I certainly see your point Hatuey. And sort of see his too.

It's political survival of the fittest. Start your own party, and every four years you'll be tied to the tree and hit in the head with a shovel. :mrgreen:
 
The media in this country makes it almost impossible for anyone other than the Republican or Democrat party candidates viable, period.

No other party's have the money to even challenge the major party's, and they are the problem.

Our government does not represent the people, they represent themselves and the people who pay for them to be elected.

Open your eyes people. The R's and D's are 2 sides of the same coin.
 
When the evidence shows that tax money is being wasted and that tax reductions spur greater economic growth why would you want to pay more taxes?

I noticed you didn't answer my question. Are there any realistic circumstances where you would ever support raising taxes?

bhkad said:
In 1982 Ronald Reagan got the US out of double digit unemployment and crippling inflation not by raising taxes but by LOWERING TAXES.

Thank you for providing an example of your extremism. You don't see any gray area at all, nor acknowledge that circumstances are ever different. Your favorite policies are right for all-time, and no other policy could ever be right under any circumstance. The only lesson to be learned from that is "tax cuts = gud LOL." Never mind that the top tax rate was TWICE as high then as it is now. Nope, the lesson to be learned is that since Reagan's tax cuts arguably stimulated the economy, ALL tax cuts must therefore stimulate the economy regardless of the circumstance.

bhkad said:
When you see what Obama's attempt to negotiate with Russia resulted in this past week you can better understand that diplomacy is best conducted from a position of strength.

Obama offered to drop the Eastern European Missile Shield plan if Russia would cooperate with us on preventing Iran from going nuclear.

This offer was made confidentially.

Medvedev refused Obama's request and made him look foolish by exposing the offer AND turning him down.

And here is another example. You take ONE example (and not even a very good example) of something and use it as evidence that a policy can NEVER work (or that it always works). That is a hallmark of an extremist ideologue.

bhkad said:
So much for negotiating from weakness.

I don't need our govt. to threaten any nation necessarily and the fact is that most diplomacy IS conducted without threats. I don't know where or how you get the idea that threats are always necessary.

But when negotiating without strength the other side has no reason to compromise.

Why should they?

OK then. Please define "negotiating from strength," and what President Bhkad would do to get us to that position, and how we should deal with our adversaries until we get there. :roll:

bhkad said:
And if they won't compromise then you have no negotiation.

It takes two to tango, buddy. You just ruled out compromise (i.e. "negotiating from weakness") and then accused Russia of being unwilling to compromise. Good thing you aren't president. :roll:
 
Last edited:
When you see what Obama's attempt to negotiate with Russia resulted in this past week you can better understand that diplomacy is best conducted from a position of strength.

Obama offered to drop the Eastern European Missile Shield plan if Russia would cooperate with us on preventing Iran from going nuclear.

This offer was made confidentially.

Medvedev refused Obama's request and made him look foolish by exposing the offer AND turning him down.

Where do you get your news?

"We have received this letter. It was in fact a reply to a letter from Medvedev sent to Obama after his appointment. The letter contained an assessment of the situation, but there were no concrete proposals about any mutually binding decisions," Natalya Timakova told reporters during a visit by Medvedev to Spain.

Russia says Obama letter has nothing concrete

“If we talk about some bargain or exchange, I can say that the issues were not raised in this way, because it’s counterproductive,” Mr. Medvedev said at a news conference in Madrid, where he was meeting with the Spanish prime minister.

“What we are getting from our U.S. partners shows at least one thing, that our U.S. partners are ready to discuss the issue,” he said. “That’s good, because only a few months ago we were getting different signals — that the decision has been made, there is nothing to talk about, that we will do everything as it has been decided.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/washington/04russia.html?bl&ex=1236315600&en=3617d899a97e6de4&ei=5087%0A

The Kremlin also disputed talk of any trade-off in the letter. In Moscow, a Kremlin source told FOX News there was no quid pro quo on Iran and missile defense in the letter, but said the correspondence was considered very positive and contained a number of initiatives.

Obama: Letter to Moscow Addressed Missile Shield, Did Not Offer Trade-Off - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com


I will now you return you all to the regularly scheduled debate.

And of course the republican party needs to have moderates,m this is not a country of extremists. All parties need moderates and moderation, all that a trend towards extremes does is further the destructive polarization. I'm with Blackdog, although politically on the other side of the spectrum it appears, we need to ditch the entire 2 party system.
 
Last edited:
No, this isn't the case at all. Coulter is a joke and despite what the white house is telling you right now, Rush doesn't lead the party.

Anyone who thinks Ann Coulter is a joke will be amused by the new a--hole she tears Keith Olbermann here.

OLBERMANN'S PLASTIC IVY
March 4, 2009


Fortunately, we have Keith Olbermann to point out that Rush Limbaugh did not accurately quote the preamble to the Constitution in his CPAC speech last weekend. I'm not sure what scam Olbermann imagined Rush was trying to put over on the American people by saying conservatives believed in the "preamble to the Constitution" and then quoting words from the Declaration of Independence -- but Olbermann put an end to that cruel deception!

You won't get the full effect of the skewering until the last sentence of the column.

Delicious!
 
No, but there are polarizing atheist figures who have made every effort to command the courts. And it's worked...cities have been known to tell little old lady's they can't have Christmas decorations on their doors for fear of law suits.

Can you show such an example?

It's not about how many millions listen to Olbermann or Rush. Rush does not lead the Republican party. Pelosi is an extremely polarizing figure and she is the speaker of the house right now.

Pelosi isn't polarizing because of what she says. She's polarizing because she's a liberal. If Pelosi came out a week from now and said 'If you don't support us you're anti-American' or something akin to that. You'd have a point.

Yeah and I am well aware of who Soros and Ayers are...

Who are they? Honestly speaking I had no clue who Ayers was until Obama's campaign and even then his moments of true polarization came 30 YEARS ago. I don't even think most on the left did until it came out. And George Soros? This is the same guy who was donating millions of dollars to anti-socialist groups in Eastern Europe. Your comparisons fail.

No, this isn't the case at all. Coulter is a joke and despite what the white house is telling you right now, Rush doesn't lead the party.

Coulter is a joke? According to whom? The New York times best seller list? Seems like a pretty convincing joke to me.
 
I think his comment was more to the point of the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties. Third parties as they are called don't stand a prayers chance in hell of getting elected.

But there is a reason for that. People choose to be Democrat, Republican, Green, Socialist, etc. So I certainly see your point Hatuey. And sort of see his too.

It's political survival of the fittest. Start your own party, and every four years you'll be tied to the tree and hit in the head with a shovel. :mrgreen:


The reason many people pick either Republican or Democrat is the lesser of 2 evils syndrome. For virtually all higher political offices it is pointless to support an other party candidate, the duopoly reigns supreme, and it fosters a sense of apathy in many.
 
Coulter is a joke? According to whom? The New York times best seller list? Seems like a pretty convincing joke to me.

:applaud..
 
Can you show such an example?

Don't be obtuse. You were part of the thread around Christmastime this year.

Pelosi isn't polarizing because of what she says. She's polarizing because she's a liberal. If Pelosi came out a week from now and said 'If you don't support us you're anti-American' or something akin to that. You'd have a point.

Then you didn't follow the lead up to the vote on the census bill AT ALL.

Who are they? Honestly speaking I had no clue who Ayers was until Obama's campaign and even then his moments of true polarization came 30 YEARS ago. I don't even think most on the left did until it came out. And George Soros? This is the same guy who was donating millions of dollars to anti-socialist groups in Eastern Europe. Your comparisons fail.

No, they are apt comparisons to yours. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that there are polarizing figures on both sides, but I didn't expect much better given your past posts.

Coulter is a joke? According to whom? The New York times best seller list? Seems like a pretty convincing joke to me.

Dan Brown was on the best seller list too but he is no authority on the Catholic Church either.

Coulter is an entertainer. Nothing more. :shrug:
 
The reason many people pick either Republican or Democrat is the lesser of 2 evils syndrome. For virtually all higher political offices it is pointless to support an other party candidate, the duopoly reigns supreme, and it fosters a sense of apathy in many.

Quoted for truth.
 
As a Democrat I wish Pelosi would learn to shut the **** some of the time. Seriously. Get her a mouthpiece.
 
It's important that our democratic system have two parties who respect each other enough to let the other govern. If Republicans cannot create a moderate wing, they will cease to exist.

Spoken like a true lib.

We have one and it's not just a wing of the party but the whole damn fuselage too.

I'd prefer all conservatives.
If we need D-Lites, we'll take them.
We'll always have them unfortunately.

Conservatives have the best chance at winning elections.

D-Lites? Look at the north east.
Libs prefer the real deal when given a choice between Libs and imitation Libs.
Even criminal Libs trounce D-Lites from the Republican party.

In the North East we need conservatives to go out there and rip the democrats. Take them on. Not sound like them...


As a Democrat I wish Pelosi would learn to shut the **** some of the time. Seriously. Get her a mouthpiece.
I love Pelosi.

But to rid yourself of the morons and their statements you need to go far deeper into the roster than that.
Obama, Biden, ObamaRhama, Holder, The Clintons, Turbin, sKerry, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy... for starters.

They all spew verbal diarrhea.H
 
Last edited:
I would love to see a more moderate wing of our party. I would actually love for both parties to marginalize their extreme wings and remove them from the equation altogether.

You're speaking my language. :mrgreen:
 
I see a completely different side of this. I see rightwingers becoming more extreme because leftwingers seem to constantly be on the attack and attempting to take away the very beliefs of those on the right. I think a lot of extreme right wingers don't really care much about taxes as much as they do not like having, for example, their religion and the freedom to practice it infringed upon.

Take for instance the school prayer issue. I don't think schools should be organizing prayer. Most moderate republicans probably don't mind the school not organizing prayer either. However, when rabid leftist, one agenda loudmouths like Cephus come along and attempt to even stop individual students from having expressions of their religion on their free time, quite a few moderates go straight to extreme rapidly. It's a natural reaction to force being applied to them.

That's just one issue. There are at least half a dozen of these hot button issues and with each one, you have a whole different demographic within the parties that become extreme.

I agree with you completely, but I'll go further to say that this phenomenon occurs on both sides. For example, a lot of moderated lefties couldn't care less if someone wants to learn about religion, as an elective, in school, but when they hear idiotic fundies shouting that if you don't want prayer in school, your anti-American, it makes these lefties go further left. This happens in every conflict, religion vs. atheism, Israel vs. Palestine, anything. The extremists of each side are the problem and their idiocy and rabid nonsense pushes moderates to defend themselves, and often needing to go to their own extremes to do it.

The best way to go after these extremists is from within. Moderate conservatives and moderate liberals (or moderate whatever) need to attack the extremists on their own side. Best way to isolate and make them irrelevant.
 
I would love to see a more moderate wing of our party. I would actually love for both parties to marginalize their extreme wings and remove them from the equation altogether.

If you want to rid extreme wings, does it mean you would dump Obama in a heart beat?

If "No" is your answer, then you are blowing smoke, as we are experiencing the most radical president to enter the Oval Office.

His actions reveal he is acting on his Marxist upbringing.
He is making Marx smile.

...

JFK would be a conservative today.

With that as a reference point, the existing Democrat Party is polluted with radicals. The entire leadership is off the charts.

So what you and the C'apn C want is socialist policy.
McCain was for it and any Lib is for it.

Conservatives believe we gave enough already.
It's time to return to what worked best.
Limited government.
Strong where it should be strong and weak where it should be weak.

Right now we have the opposite, and an ever increasing role of government into our lives and industry.
 
If you want to rid extreme wings, does it mean you would dump Obama in a heart beat?

If "No" is your answer, then you are blowing smoke, as we are experiencing the most radical president to enter the Oval Office.

His actions reveal he is acting on his Marxist upbringing.
He is making Marx smile.

...

JFK would be a conservative today.

With that as a reference point, the existing Democrat Party is polluted with radicals. The entire leadership is off the charts.

So what you and the C'apn C want is socialist policy.
McCain was for it and any Lib is for it.

Conservatives believe we gave enough already.
It's time to return to what worked best.
Limited government.
Strong where it should be strong and weak where it should be weak.

Right now we have the opposite, and an ever increasing role of government into our lives and industry.

You still don't understand what socialism means. :roll: And you still don't recognize yourself as an uncompromising hyperpartisan extreme conservative...which you are, as evidenced by your inability to see anything past your narrow view. That's fine. But understand that is folks like you that have ruined your party and chased away moderates and pushed those who could support you further and further away. This is also why those with your position have no hope of garnering much power.

Oh, and when was the last time we had real limited government? Coolidge? Worst President we had in the 20th Century. His economic policies helped usher in the Great Depression. Policies on either far end of the scale will fail, left or right. But an extremist on either side, cannot see that.

You do realize that it was your type of extremism that put someone like Obama in office? Keep pushing, and others push back.
 
You still don't understand what socialism means. :roll: And you still don't recognize yourself as an uncompromising hyperpartisan extreme conservative...which you are, as evidenced by your inability to see anything past your narrow view. That's fine. But understand that is folks like you that have ruined your party and chased away moderates and pushed those who could support you further and further away. This is also why those with your position have no hope of garnering much power.

Oh, and when was the last time we had real limited government? Coolidge? Worst President we had in the 20th Century. His economic policies helped usher in the Great Depression. Policies on either far end of the scale will fail, left or right. But an extremist on either side, cannot see that.

You do realize that it was your type of extremism that put someone like Obama in office? Keep pushing, and others push back.

Would you rid Obama and Biden from the scene?
Two of the furthest left hacks in the Senate?
Do I have to beg you to answer this or are you going to duck this simple question?

I know socialism full well.

I am a partisan. I have admitted it. Would never deny it.
I opposed Bush's spending, illegal immigration stance.
I oppose McCain's environmental stance, global warming stance.

A few factors got Obama elected.

His skin color. I will defer to Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton as to why.
McCain was too similar on some issues and would not go after his tragic character flaws. McCain blew a simple task.
Obama was never pressed, but defended. How do you explain Joe the Plumber?
White guilt/Historic moment.

Obama is so flawed and weak it is amazing he got out of Illinois. But he's a cold calculating politician that learned his Alinsky lessons well. Alinsky's son praised Obama for flawlessly executing his Pop's strategies.

He looks nice, is clean, articulate (with a teleprompter), and well... that's about all it takes to win the Democrat nomination.

Nevermind he is a hard core leftist that had to hide and denounce most of his associations with leftist radicals. Ayers, Wright, Michelle, Blago, Johnston, Khalidi... just to tip a hat to some of his clan.
 
I feel the question is fairly self explanatory. Should the Republican Party have a moderate wing in it? And why or why not?

Edit: I'm mostly curious to hear what posters who identify as Republicans have to say. Obviously, Democrats for example have much less say and much less stake.




They are a moderate wing right now..... McCain anyone? :roll:
 
Spoken like a true lib.

...Conservatives have the best chance at winning elections.
...In the North East we need conservatives to go out there and rip the democrats. Take them on. Not sound like them......Obama, Biden, ObamaRhama, Holder, The Clintons, Turbin, sKerry, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy... for starters...They all spew verbal diarrhea.H

As a registered Democrat, my post expressed a desire to see a Republican party that acts as an honorable competitor. Your reaction is to insult, then become bellicose. Conservatives seem dedicated to advance their ideology using bullying techniques and scorched earth policy. You will find that Democrats are not as passive as you might believe. If you insist on your destructive tactics, we will dog you to the end, then put a stake in your heart to make sure you are dead.
 
I agree with Jallman and the Courteous Captain, kick the extremists out...

OR....

Moderates from both parties should leave the DEM and the GOP, and form a third party, of Moderates...
 
Open your eyes people. The R's and D's are 2 sides of the same coin.

Duh....would you want the country to be thrown back and forth between parties of extreme ideology? Regardless the beliefs of its political parties, the course of America must be steady, predictable and honorable.
 
Duh....would you want the country to be thrown back and forth between parties of extreme ideology? Regardless the beliefs of its political parties, the course of America must be steady, predictable and honorable.

No that would be ridicules.

I want to vote for a candidate I can believe in. I and many others are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. We are sick and tired of the bulls*** candidates given to us by our selective party's.

PS The course of America must be guided by the Constitution, no matter what party is in control.

Our partys seem to not really care about the Constitution. One thinks it is just an annoyance to be changed on a whim while the other just ignores it.
 
Last edited:
If you want to rid extreme wings, does it mean you would dump Obama in a heart beat?

If "No" is your answer, then you are blowing smoke, as we are experiencing the most radical president to enter the Oval Office.

His actions reveal he is acting on his Marxist upbringing.
He is making Marx smile.

...

JFK would be a conservative today.

With that as a reference point, the existing Democrat Party is polluted with radicals. The entire leadership is off the charts.

So what you and the C'apn C want is socialist policy.
McCain was for it and any Lib is for it.

Conservatives believe we gave enough already.
It's time to return to what worked best.
Limited government.
Strong where it should be strong and weak where it should be weak.

Right now we have the opposite, and an ever increasing role of government into our lives and industry.

You have no idea what socialist actually means.

And you are barking up the wrong tree here, pal. I did not support Obama through the elections and I only grudgingly give him the respect he deserves as president now out of civic obligation to support our commander in chief.
 
Back
Top Bottom