• 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
the makeout hobo

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
No. That would make Rush Limbaugh angry.
 
They already do. They voted for McCain in the primary.

Seriously, I think they already do.
 
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.
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

HEAR HEAR!!!!

I yield my time to the gentleman from California...
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, you're a lone voice in the GOP. I can't even think of how many posters here are always whining about RINOs.
 
From what I can tell, you're a lone voice in the GOP. I can't even think of how many posters here are always whining about RINOs.
Click to expand...

Do you read Dana's posts? There are plenty of republicans here who are unsatisfied with their parties current direction.
 
rathi said:
Do you read Dana's posts? There are plenty of republicans here who are unsatisfied with their parties current direction.
Click to expand...

Many of them seem to want to more or less kick out the moderate wing of the GOP, Dana included. What are your thoughts?
 
Moderate republicans are the Fox News audience. They are the "Bush lovers" and the McCain supporters.
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is so extreme about believing in the right to life, liberty the pursuit of happiness, personal responsibility, less government and the founding principles?
 
the makeout hobo said:
From what I can tell, you're a lone voice in the GOP. I can't even think of how many posters here are always whining about RINOs.
Click to expand...

I think you have a point. However, I think there is a lot of polarization and "if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality going on with both sides.
 
sazerac said:
Moderate republicans are the Fox News audience. They are the "Bush lovers" and the McCain supporters.
Click to expand...

2 Words : Compassionate Conservative. COMPLETELY disprove your claim.
 
bhkad said:
What is so extreme about believing in the right to life, liberty the pursuit of happiness, personal responsibility, less government and the founding principles?
Click to expand...

What is so extreme is that you, and many others, have a very narrow view of what those things entail, and view anyone who disagrees with you on anything as an enemy of freedom. Even the tone of the question you just asked confirms your moral superiority (in your own mind) to anyone who disagrees with you. :roll:

Are there any realistic circumstances where you would support tax increases? Are there any realistic circumstances where you would support negotiating with (and making real concessions to) adversarial nations instead of threatening them?

I didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
What is so extreme about believing in the right to life, liberty the pursuit of happiness, personal responsibility, less government and the founding principles?
Click to expand...

Did I say there was anything extreme about those principles? I don't remember saying there was anything extreme about those principles. Can you point me to where I stated there was anything extreme about those principles?

Really? Didn't think so.
 
jallman said:
I think you have a point. However, I think there is a lot of polarization and "if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality going on with both sides.
Click to expand...

I think the right wing is a lot more visibly polarized then the left. How many serious radically far left commentators can you name? I can think of Franken and Olberman. Now how many of these guys pull in the same numbers as far right figures like Rush and Coulter? None. While surely both sides have a lot of polarization I can't see it being as visible for the left as it is for the right. Mind you. The left does have some pretty polarizing groups like PETA and Code Pink but these are for the most part one issue groups who's activities say almost nothing about whether they stand for or against taxes or whether they oppose or support embryonic stem cell research etc.
 
jallman said:
Did I say there was anything extreme about those principles? I don't remember saying there was anything extreme about those principles. Can you point me to where I stated there was anything extreme about those principles?

Really? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

No, jallman you did not say anything about those principles.

But do you think the extremists espouse, believe in or live by principles much different than those mentioned?
 
Hatuey said:
I think the right wing is a lot more visibly polarized then the left. How many serious radically far left commentators can you name? I can think of Franken and Olberman. Now how many of these guys pull in the same numbers as far right figures like Rush and Coulter? None. While surely both sides have a lot of polarization I can't see it being as visible for the left as it is for the right. Mind you. The left does have some pretty polarizing groups like PETA and Code Pink but these are for the most part one issue groups who's activities say almost nothing about whether they stand for or against taxes or whether they oppose or support embryonic stem cell research etc.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bhkad said:
No, jallman you did not say anything about those principles.

But do you think the extremists espouse, believe in or live by principles much different than those mentioned?
Click to expand...

In a word, yes.

They tend to apply a double standard to the idea of "don't tread on me". They feel perfectly at ease with making the government tread on others in the name of their feigned moral superiority.
 
You all have it wrong. We need to dump our 2 party system, period.
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. 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. 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. 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.
 
Kandahar said:
What is so extreme is that you, and many others, have a very narrow view of what those things entail, and view anyone who disagrees with you on anything as an enemy of freedom. Even the tone of the question you just asked confirms your moral superiority (in your own mind) to anyone who disagrees with you. :roll:

Are there any realistic circumstances where you would support tax increases? Are there any realistic circumstances where you would support negotiating with (and making real concessions to) adversarial nations instead of threatening them?

I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

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?

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

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.

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?

And if they won't compromise then you have no negotiation.
 
Blackdog said:
You all have it wrong. We need to dump our 2 party system, period.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom