• 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
WillRockwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is brutally simple.

Who is closer to what the Founders set as a basis for the rules of our government and society?

Who defends the ideals with regularity?

Hint: Republicans.

Now:

We acted like you and got smoked.
We can only slow what you want to do.
We do not agree with what you do.

If I ridicule Democrats... well... I'm ridiculing someone I used to be.
Well intentioned but severely misguided.

I have repented for my sins.
You might too one day.

It is liberating.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I feel the question is fairly self explanatory. Should the Republican Party have a moderate wing in it? And why or why not?
Click to expand...
Most of the GOP is already moderate.
 
The GOP has a moderate wing.

Actually, the GOP is a moderate wing.

It's why they can't win elections.

Real Americans don't like pansies that can't stand for an ideal.
 
WillRockwell said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting, in that you're describing the Dems reaction to the 2000/2002/2004 elections.
 
Kandahar said:
I noticed you didn't answer my question. Are there any realistic circumstances where you would ever support raising taxes?
Click to expand...

Yes. Any tax on the poor to make their contributions to society more in line with their drain on society.

Absent that, a war for national survival, but that tax would only be imposed after the unconstitutional spending programs are cancelled, and there's an awful lot of those.

Outside of totally eliminating the military, what areas of federal spending do you wish eliminated?

Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

The lesson of supply side economics is that since we're on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, a tax decrease will stimulate the economy.

Certainly the Obama scam of "stimulus" through porkbarrel spending that won't take effect for two years isn't going to do a thing.


Kandahar said:
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:
Click to expand...

Oh.

First, we drill our own oil and destroy the Russian economy, which is based on the petro-dollar, and that destroys the Iranian economy, too.

Then we ignore the Russian's demands we leave Poland alone, and deal with Poland as a sovereign nation.

There's really nothing to talk to Russia about, so no need to negotiate anything.

Asking for Russia's permission? That was the weakness demonstrated.

Kandahar said:
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:
Click to expand...

Russia, with Obama's admission of weakness, didn't have any need to compromise. It was given the position of strength because Obama is working hard to eradicate Carter's reputation as the very worst and most ignorant foreign policy president we've ever had.

His imbecilic letter to the Russians was a very long step in his Carter Rescue Aid Program, also known as Obama's foreign policy CRAP.
 
zimmer said:
This is brutally simple.

Who is closer to what the Founders set as a basis for the rules of our government and society?

Who defends the ideals with regularity?

Hint: Republicans.

Now:

We acted like you and got smoked.
We can only slow what you want to do.
We do not agree with what you do.

If I ridicule Democrats... well... I'm ridiculing someone I used to be.
Well intentioned but severely misguided.

I have repented for my sins.
You might too one day.

It is liberating.
Click to expand...

all of the founding fathers were liberals, it was the Brits/Loyalists who were conservatives. and republicans didn't exist as a party at that time...
 
This kind of goes with the discussion of Fusionism in another thread.

I think Moderate Republicans are important to the party in general, and both parties really. No party is going to "get rid of" its extremists. Its just not going to happen, they're always going to be there. Likewise, I don't think either party will fully "get rid of" their Moderates. It may skew one way or another, but they'll always be there.

And because they're there, they need the other. Have two parties too ruled over by moderates and you will begin to see both parties converging into one large convoluted center where no new ideas come out of and half-compromises that please very few but keep the majority of people apathetic to it is going to happen. Have two parties too ruled over by extremists and you'll have two parties so far to the end extremes that new ideas will never truly come to be because the ideas from both side are so far outside the norm. Neither of these things are good.

Together, they temper each other to a point.

I agree with the poster above, Will I think, on one point. We NEED two strong parties in this country (at least). I'm a staunch conservative and I believe conservative ideology will win out. I also believe this is a continually changing, shifting, and adapting world where we must routinely try to apply our principles to new positions. Having an opposition party that we can contrast against, see the mistakes in, and possibly able to point out where some of our ideas may be legitimately flawed, is needed for the movement and ideology to continue to grow and evolve. And the same goes for liberalism.

The key to a moderate wing is that it can not become the dominant voice of the party. Having that happens is as dangerous as having an extremist voice as the dominant one of your party. One will put off and mute the turn out of your traditional base, the other will put off and mute the turn out of the general undecided middle.

A moderate wing is needed within the party however to put a check on the extremists, and vise versa. Kicking either out is foolish.

That does not mean that those who are more stuanchly or extremely to one side should not battle against the moderates. They should. And the moderates should battle back. However, it should be done respectfully, because its from that common ground that some kind of actual platform will be forged that gets all sections of the base on board while having a legitimate shot at bringing over the undecided middle.

The interesting thing about the republican party and its current 4 ideological position split as detailed in the fushion thread is that each group has some views that are slightly more "moderate" or even liberal in view point. As such, this injects certain possible chances of moderate views into the Conservative movement at all times.
 
UtahBill said:
all of the founding fathers were liberals
Click to expand...
They were Classical American Liberals.
Today, most would be Libertarians. Some of them would be very rabidly so, and referred to by Modern American Liberals as 'right-wing extremists'.
 
zimmer said:
This is brutally simple.

Who is closer to what the Founders set as a basis for the rules of our government and society?

Who defends the ideals with regularity?

Hint: Republicans.
Click to expand...

If Republicans really acted this way, no one would complain. Instead, they obstruct, impeach, spend millions cooking up dirty tricks, and refuse to let the elected party govern.
 
The idealism of the GOP is no longer what it was. Now it is mostly the religious right fighting abortion and gay issues, the greedy lining their pockets at our expense, the hawks starting war to further line their pockets, and the tax cheats who demand lower taxes at the expense of the nation....
each of them having for the most part a single issue that drives them.

not to worry, I have complaints about the liberals as well....

we were a well respected nation back in the days of 70% and higher tax rates for the very rich....
 
WillRockwell said:
If Republicans really acted this way, no one would complain. Instead, they obstruct, impeach, spend millions cooking up dirty tricks, and refuse to let the elected party govern.
Click to expand...

So in other words they act just like Democrats? Hmmm.
 
Umm, I may be crazy here but the republicans in power ALSO were elected. And I believe them doing things within the law to obstruct laws and actions that run contrary to what the constituents that voted them into power want is actually EXACTLY what they should be doing and not something they should be insulted or slandered for.
 
WillRockwell said:
If Republicans really acted this way, no one would complain. Instead, they obstruct, impeach, spend millions cooking up dirty tricks, and refuse to let the elected party govern.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
Who was the party elected to govern when Clinton was impeached?
 
UtahBill said:
all of the founding fathers were liberals, it was the Brits/Loyalists who were conservatives. and republicans didn't exist as a party at that time...
Click to expand...

Liberalism used to have a different definition.

Doesn't matter what party they were from, what matters is ideology. Republicans are closer to the Founders, the Democrats closer to Marx.

JFK wouldn't be a Democrat today.
He'd be a Conservative Republican tax cutting warmonger.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
all of the founding fathers were liberals, it was the Brits/Loyalists who were conservatives. and republicans didn't exist as a party at that time...
Click to expand...






So the FF were for a nanny state?

I think you fail on the comparison here.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
They are a moderate wing right now..... McCain anyone? :roll:
Click to expand...

If you look at what's been happening, moderate Republicans are the ones that have been losing the congressional races lately. This isn't because of their ideology neccessarily, it's just that you're more likely to get a moderate in a state like New Hampshire or Rhode Island or Minnisota that is by nature more moderately balanced. Obviously, someone like Tom Coburn would never get elected in New England or the Upper Midwest in the first place, he's just too conservative. So when these wave elections happen, it's the moderates who usually lose, since there states are more likely to vote for a Democrat than the ones that usually elect the hard liners. So now, the Republican party is much more conservative than it was four years ago, due to most of the moderates being replaced.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes. Any tax on the poor to make their contributions to society more in line with their drain on society.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. That is nothing more than a punitive attack on those who can least afford it. And it would generate almost NO revenue for the government, as the poor don't have much to tax in the first place.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Absent that, a war for national survival, but that tax would only be imposed after the unconstitutional spending programs are cancelled, and there's an awful lot of those.

Outside of totally eliminating the military, what areas of federal spending do you wish eliminated?
Click to expand...

Uhh I don't support totally eliminating the military. Perhaps you have me confused with what you imagine liberals believe. :roll:

Other areas of federal spending I'd like to see eliminated? The FDA. The FCC. The Department of Agriculture. Social security (although I'd like to see it phased out instead of eliminated).

Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head. See, unlike you, I'm not an ideologue. I don't think government is always the solution, although you stupidly think it's always the problem.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The lesson of supply side economics is that since we're on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, a tax decrease will stimulate the economy.
Click to expand...

Wow. There are so many misconceptions in that single sentence it's truly breathtaking.

First of all, the Laffer Curve does not predict how much the economy will be stimulated. It predicts how much tax revenue will be generated. Theoretically ANY tax cut would stimulate the economy...assuming that the money was being thrown into a hole and set on fire. The Laffer Curve predicts how much REVENUE will be generated, nothing more.

There is no evidence to support your conjecture that we're on the "wrong side" of the Laffer Curve. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When Bush cut taxes, revenue dropped dramatically. Even when Reagan cut taxes (from a much higher starting point), revenue declined slightly. In all probability the maximum on the Laffer Curve fluctuates between 55-70%, and varies depending on the economic circumstances. That's not to say that we need a 55-70% income tax, but that is what would most likely generate the maximum revenue.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Certainly the Obama scam of "stimulus" through porkbarrel spending that won't take effect for two years isn't going to do a thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. Which is why we should also be spending a lot on things that can take effect immediately: State bailouts, buying up bad debt from banks, infrastructure projects, expanding unemployment insurance, etc.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
First, we drill our own oil and destroy the Russian economy, which is based on the petro-dollar, and that destroys the Iranian economy, too.
Click to expand...

That is beyond moronic. The United States simply doesn't have enough oil to "destroy the Russian and Iranian economies." Even if Alaska was another Saudi Arabia, we wouldn't have enough to destroy their economies.

But putting all that aside, what do you suggest we do until all that oil starts pumping?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then we ignore the Russian's demands we leave Poland alone, and deal with Poland as a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

We already do that.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There's really nothing to talk to Russia about, so no need to negotiate anything.
Click to expand...

Nothing to talk to Russia about??! Are you ****ing serious?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Asking for Russia's permission? That was the weakness demonstrated.

Russia, with Obama's admission of weakness, didn't have any need to compromise. It was given the position of strength because Obama is working hard to eradicate Carter's reputation as the very worst and most ignorant foreign policy president we've ever had.

His imbecilic letter to the Russians was a very long step in his Carter Rescue Aid Program, also known as Obama's foreign policy CRAP.
Click to expand...

So then let me pose the same question to you that I posed to bhkad: Are there any circumstances in which you would be willing to compromise and grant any concessions at all to any adversarial nations on any issue?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So in other words they act just like Democrats? Hmmm.
Click to expand...

I assume you are reacting to what you've been told on rightwing radio, because the facts tell a different story. Or maybe you're just part of the GOP project to rewrite history.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Of course they do. That is why I am a Libertarian. ;)
Click to expand...

please, I had little enough respect for you as just an ordinary conservative, now you tell me you are a member of a permanently minority party?:2razz:
 
WillRockwell said:
I assume you are reacting to what you've been told on rightwing radio, because the facts tell a different story. Or maybe you're just part of the GOP project to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Or just maybe I am an independent conservative who can actually see through the partisan crap people like you spew? :2wave:
 
No. The Republican party should stay true to their base of the last couple of decades. The GOP should shun the Goldwater Republicans and focus on the Rush Limbaughs, Sara Palins and Mike Huckabees.
The GOP will continue to lose elections unless they realize that they need to move further to the right-wing and embrace the fundamentalists and evangelicals.
 
The extremes seen in both parties are a vicious cycle, compounded by forcing the moderates further to one side. Liberals react to right-wing commentary and policy by becoming more left wing, including their moderates; Conservatives react by doing the same in their parties, and their moderates get pushed more to the right. The vicious cycle continues until balance is upset in both leans. This is very dangerous, in my view, for democracy. You can always tell the state of a country's stability by how polarized its moderates have become.

I also agree with what CC said about internal culls of the extremists. Since parties can never rely on outside sources to do the work for them, it has to be internal... but just who holds the cards in the parties right now?
 
UtahBill said:
please, I had little enough respect for you as just an ordinary conservative, now you tell me you are a member of a permanently minority party?:2razz:
Click to expand...




Oh my bad, "l"ibertarian. small l.... not a member of any party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom