• 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!

How to Revive the Republican Party

What Should the Republican Party Focus On?

  • Total voters
    29
FallingPianos said:
There has been a lot of talk recently about the soul-searching the republican party is doing, after its losses last election.

What do you think republicans need to focus on, in order to win back its appeal?

Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.

Social Conservatism - opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues.

National Defense - increase military spending and recruitment, more aggressive international policies.

Nationalism - oppose multiculturalism, english as an official language, more immigration control.
Click to expand...


Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.
 
real fiscal conservatism down to a personnel culture of not living beyond your means whilst encouraging entrepreneurship through lower taxes.small government but small but good governance.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.
Click to expand...

Just saying, but I don't like how some of the Republicans are trying to say that they are always against bailouts for political reasons.

We really did need them for the banks or we could of had a depression. Sure, they are crappy and they could have been bettere, but we need to be realists.
 
nerv14 said:
Just saying, but I don't like how some of the Republicans are trying to say that they are always against bailouts for political reasons.

We really did need them for the banks or we could of had a depression. Sure, they are crappy and they could have been bettere, but we need to be realists.
Click to expand...

The bad banks didn't need a bailout, they needed to die. You can blame mark to market on a lot of the problem, but mark to market was a known that the banks should have managed to. They didn't. The good parts of the dead banks would have been assumed by others. The bad parts should have been put to rest.

We live (at least so far) in a capitalist society. The market rules. The bad banks were only too happy to write bad loans because Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said they should. But the still sound banks had no part of their charade. In the end it all comes back to the market. Let the market do what it does best.
 
nerv14 said:
Just saying, but I don't like how some of the Republicans are trying to say that they are always against bailouts for political reasons.

We really did need them for the banks or we could of had a depression. Sure, they are crappy and they could have been bettere, but we need to be realists.
Click to expand...

We didn't need them for the banks.

Last time I read the Constitution, the FHA is illegal.

Without the FHA, there'd have been no Fannie-Mae nor Freddie-Mac, and thus no underhanded manipulation of the banking industry by the Democrats.

Without the underhanded manipulation, there'd have been no need for a bailout.

Any banking failure would have been a local failure. That's the tragedy of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System.
 
ThomasPaine said:
The bad banks didn't need a bailout, they needed to die. You can blame mark to market on a lot of the problem, but mark to market was a known that the banks should have managed to. They didn't. The good parts of the dead banks would have been assumed by others. The bad parts should have been put to rest.

We live (at least so far) in a capitalist society. The market rules. The bad banks were only too happy to write bad loans because Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said they should. But the still sound banks had no part of their charade. In the end it all comes back to the market. Let the market do what it does best.
Click to expand...

We live in a formerly free, formerly capitalist society which has been undermined for nearly a century by interfering lefties gradually wedging the blunt fat fingers of government between the seller and the buyer, so that even before Obamanomics there was more government than freedom in our markets.

So yes, I agree fully the banks should have been allowed to collapse, and yes, the Detroit car companies with their full complement of parasitic union employees that have ruined this country, should have been allowed to fail.
 
nerv14 said:
Saying anyone who votes for Obama is not America sounds kind of authoritarian to me. Just saying.
Click to expand...

So?

It's the right thing to say, because it's true.

nerv14 said:
There is a difference from someone who is dumb enough to vote for Obama, but they really do like him, and people who don't like McCain but don't have the principles to not vote for him. They are both bad in different ways.
Click to expand...

No.

McCain is just a RINO.

Obama is an avowed socialist.

It's the difference between a smallpox innoculation and catching the real disease from Peace Prize winning Russian dictators.

nerv14 said:
I agree that people who vote for someone just because of their party are harmful voters though, which puts alot of Republicans who voted for McCain under that catagory too.
Click to expand...

No.

One party at least tries to promote ideas and ideals that are beneficial for the United States, regardless of the individual candidate that may be nominated in any given year.

The Democrats are not that party. In the past, in my lifetime, the Democrats have elected:

A callow senator with too few years of experience who then caused the deaths of thousands at the Bay of Pigs, and who later through his incompetence almost started a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

A corrupt President from Texas who deliberately lied, on a scale that makes any ridiculous claims the Democrats want to whine about for Bush look llike a kid caught stealing candy, to get us into a pointless war that produced 56,000 casualties, who was such an awful president he declined to run for a second full term.

A total idiot who couldn't figure out that America's future wasn't going to be one of Less is More, not if the voters had anything to say about it, and who couldn't figure out that bombing Tehran was the only response open to dealing with the criminal regime there.

Then the Democrats elected a known liar, a proven rapist, who loathed the military.

Now they've elected an avowed socialist and experienced teleprompter reader....who has EVEN LESS experience than the boob that invaded the Bay of Pigs. And this boob is running around APOLOGIZING all over the place.

Nothing good comes from Democrats in high office.
 
TOJ said:
To paraphrase someone, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Cult members usually do what their Messiah tells them without question or even understanding why they do it. ;)


.
Click to expand...


To cite another prophet, I believe it was Norman Schwarzkopf, or maybe some unidentified Marine....

....It's not our job to forgive them, it's our job to arrange a meeting for them with the guy who volunteered for that job.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
To cite another prophet, I believe it was Norman Schwarzkopf, or maybe some unidentified Marine....

....It's not our job to forgive them, it's our job to arrange a meeting for them with the guy who volunteered for that job.
Click to expand...
I was talking about Prez Doofus voters/supporters in the quoted post. I assume you are not in this post.


.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
We didn't need them for the banks.

Last time I read the Constitution, the FHA is illegal.

Without the FHA, there'd have been no Fannie-Mae nor Freddie-Mac, and thus no underhanded manipulation of the banking industry by the Democrats.

Without the underhanded manipulation, there'd have been no need for a bailout.

Any banking failure would have been a local failure. That's the tragedy of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System.
Click to expand...

People don't follow the Constitution, so even though there was a super majority to pass an amendment to give those enumerated powers, they won't do that. So that shouldn't be as much of an exuse as it is to be against the bailouts.


Regardless, those mistakes don't mean that the RECENT bailouts weren't also a problem.

Right, without other manipulation of the economy we wouldn't need the bailouts, but that doesn't mean right now. Thats for the future.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So?

It's the right thing to say, because it's true.



No.

McCain is just a RINO.

Obama is an avowed socialist.

It's the difference between a smallpox innoculation and catching the real disease from Peace Prize winning Russian dictators.



No.

One party at least tries to promote ideas and ideals that are beneficial for the United States, regardless of the individual candidate that may be nominated in any given year.

The Democrats are not that party. In the past, in my lifetime, the Democrats have elected:

A callow senator with too few years of experience who then caused the deaths of thousands at the Bay of Pigs, and who later through his incompetence almost started a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

A corrupt President from Texas who deliberately lied, on a scale that makes any ridiculous claims the Democrats want to whine about for Bush look llike a kid caught stealing candy, to get us into a pointless war that produced 56,000 casualties, who was such an awful president he declined to run for a second full term.

A total idiot who couldn't figure out that America's future wasn't going to be one of Less is More, not if the voters had anything to say about it, and who couldn't figure out that bombing Tehran was the only response open to dealing with the criminal regime there.

Then the Democrats elected a known liar, a proven rapist, who loathed the military.

Now they've elected an avowed socialist and experienced teleprompter reader....who has EVEN LESS experience than the boob that invaded the Bay of Pigs. And this boob is running around APOLOGIZING all over the place.

Nothing good comes from Democrats in high office.
Click to expand...

I like your reasons that Clinton Sucked :p They don't mean anything, the cold was over. We didn't need as big a military.
Cause, in case you didn't know, conventional forces don't help stopping terrorists on American soil.


And I like your reasons for why Kennedy was a bad president, because those answers for his mistakes didn't matter because of how well he did everywhere else.

And I agree that the other democratic presidents were poor though. But lets not be partisan, and give people their credit when they deserve it.
I liked all of the Republican presidents to a degree (and Reagan was great) except that both Bushs have done a poor job. The republicans were pretty good before Reagan.
 
nerv14 said:
I like your reasons that Clinton Sucked :p They don't mean anything, the cold was over. We didn't need as big a military.
Cause, in case you didn't know, conventional forces don't help stopping terrorists on American soil.
Click to expand...

Don't have a clue about US military planning, I see.

Also, you're apparently unfamiliar with posse comitatus.

nerv14 said:
And I like your reasons for why Kennedy was a bad president, because those answers for his mistakes didn't matter because of how well he did everywhere else.
Click to expand...

He did well...

...when he cut taxes.

That's it.

Oh oh oh. you've got the urge to babble about NASA, which unconstitutionally, as a civillian agency, sent men to the moon, as part of a military propaganda stunt, and which, if you'd bothered to look at the legacy of NASA since it killed Apollo, has chased one disaster after the next and been the biggest impediment to civillian commercial space development in the US. The Space Shuttle killed Skylab. The Shuttle killed unmanned heavy lift launch vehicle development. The Shuttle has been, a huge waste of money and a mistake, since it was engineered by rivet counters in Washington who were more interested in making sure every possible congressional district got a piece of the action than in making sure the action actually happened.

Kennedy....was a callow boob.

nerv14 said:
And I agree that the other democratic presidents were poor though. But lets not be partisan, and give people their credit when they deserve it.
Click to expand...

I did.

As you can see, Democrat presidents don't deserve credit, so I didn't give them any.

You'll note also in my post, I didn't give Republican presidents any. The only one that deserves any was Reagan, the rest were Democrats without the jackass.

nerv14 said:
The republicans were pretty good before Reagan.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....you mean, Socialist Wage and Price Control Nixon? WIN Button, Swine Flu Ford?

Clearly the Bush's sucked....they liked being Democrats too much to be any good.

Reagan did things all right, given the constraints he was under....I mean, the most powerful branch of government was under enemy control throughout his entire term.
 
nerv14 said:
People don't follow the Constitution, so even though there was a super majority to pass an amendment to give those enumerated powers, they won't do that. So that shouldn't be as much of an exuse as it is to be against the bailouts.
Click to expand...

Hello?

The powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution are ...um...how can I say this delicately without hurting any feelings?....I can't....THEY'RE IN THE FRIGGIN' CONSTITUTION ALREADY.

The problem is...the stupid voters refuse to eject congressthings and presidents who exceed those limits, and they refuse to elect Congressmen who will impeach the judges that can't read the Constitution.

The Constitution wasn't written for lawyers, it was written for the people. The retarded stupid people have refused to read it, and now they're upset that things aren't working.

We don't need an amendment, that's merely an illustration of your own ignorance.

We need people to wake up.

nerv14 said:
Regardless, those mistakes don't mean that the RECENT bailouts weren't also a problem.
Click to expand...

Of course they were. Obama nationalized GM and fired it's CEO.

Oh wonderful. Will he make the trains run on time, too?

nerv14 said:
Right, without other manipulation of the economy we wouldn't need the bailouts, but that doesn't mean right now. Thats for the future.
Click to expand...

The future is here, now. The future begins with your very next heartbeat.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hello?

The powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution are ...um...how can I say this delicately without hurting any feelings?....I can't....THEY'RE IN THE FRIGGIN' CONSTITUTION ALREADY.

The problem is...the stupid voters refuse to eject congressthings and presidents who exceed those limits, and they refuse to elect Congressmen who will impeach the judges that can't read the Constitution.

The Constitution wasn't written for lawyers, it was written for the people. The retarded stupid people have refused to read it, and now they're upset that things aren't working.

We don't need an amendment, that's merely an illustration of your own ignorance.

We need people to wake up.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Of course we would need an amendment to add bailouts to the powers of congress! The Constitution can be a living document that changes depending on the times.

It doesn't need to be stagnated in your views of what the federal government can do.

Making the country avoid a depression is more important then the Constitution, sorry. I will probally vote for a libertarian in congress for 2010, so I am watching for the future, but we need to pay attention to the present as well.

Don't worry, I am use to this forum being very rude (compared to all of the other forums ive been to). But I come here because there is good substance. Lets stick to that.

Of course they were. Obama nationalized GM and fired it's CEO.

Oh wonderful. Will he make the trains run on time, too?



The future is here, now. The future begins with your very next heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you now. All I am saying is that we needed the bailouts. (with bailing out the automakers as not being very important)

And don't confuse Obama with a fascist, all that does it rally up uneducated voters when it makes no sense at all.
 
FallingPianos said:
There has been a lot of talk recently about the soul-searching the republican party is doing, after its losses last election.

What do you think republicans need to focus on, in order to win back its appeal?

Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.

Social Conservatism - opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues.

National Defense - increase military spending and recruitment, more aggressive international policies.

Nationalism - oppose multiculturalism, english as an official language, more immigration control.
Click to expand...

The GOP should focus on dying and allowing a true small government party to come forward to lead.
 
nerv14 said:
What are you talking about? Of course we would need an amendment to add bailouts to the powers of congress! The Constitution can be a living document that changes depending on the times.
Click to expand...

Has the amendment been written, passed and ratified?

No.

Then the bailout is unconstitutional.

nerv14 said:
It doesn't need to be stagnated in your views of what the federal government can do.
Click to expand...

Right.

So when you gonna start getting Amendments ratified to make your nonsense legal?

nerv14 said:
Making the country avoid a depression is more important then the Constitution, sorry.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Failing to obey the Constitution is what caused the first depression, what made it longer, and what made it get worse.

Failing to obey the Constitution is what caused this depression, what's going to make it longer, and what's going to make it worse.

nerv14 said:
I will probally vote for a libertarian in congress for 2010, so I am watching for the future, but we need to pay attention to the present as well.
Click to expand...

Why? The last LP candidate was a Republican.

nerv14 said:
Not disagreeing with you now. All I am saying is that we needed the bailouts. (with bailing out the automakers as not being very important)
Click to expand...

You're wrong. We needed a free market.

Wall Street and the bankers, they needed the bailouts.

Now we know who the Democrats and the Republicans are working for.

It ain't us.

nerv14 said:
And don't confuse Obama with a fascist, all that does it rally up uneducated voters when it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I don't suffer under any confusions at all. Obama is close enough to a fascist as makes no difference. He's even proposed new trains, isn't that special?
 
Zyphlin said:
See you in 30+ years.
Click to expand...

I know it ain't gonna happen, but that's what should happen. Replace the GOP with an actual small government party. Two big government parties just isn't working out well for us I fear.
 
Ikari said:
I know it ain't gonna happen, but that's what should happen. Replace the GOP with an actual small government party. Two big government parties just isn't working out well for us I fear.
Click to expand...

You mean, have two parties that don't echo each other's ideas and become completely indistiginguishable when the elections are over?

Nah, that would never work. It would require voters to use the brains and backbones they don't have.
 
nerv14 said:
..

Making the country avoid a depression is more important then the Constitution, sorry.

....
Click to expand...
So you are saying the US Constitution is basically worthless. Those currently in power can do whatever they please because.... well, whatever they want to do is more important than the US Constitution.

Sounds like a stupid idea to me, but then what would an outsider know. :roll:


.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean, have two parties that don't echo each other's ideas and become completely indistiginguishable when the elections are over?

Nah, that would never work. It would require voters to use the brains and backbones they don't have.
Click to expand...

Or...
Perhaps the fact that we have a big government party and a bigger government party is an indication that the American people don't WANT smaller government. If the people actually wanted a smaller government, I assure you that at least one (if not both) of the main parties would step up to meet their needs.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Or...
Perhaps the fact that we have a big government party and a bigger government party is an indication that the American people don't WANT smaller government. If the people actually wanted a smaller government, I assure you that at least one (if not both) of the main parties would step up to meet their needs.
Click to expand...

Why, when they're constituted to meet the needs of their leaders, not the people they con into subscribing to them?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why, when they're constituted to meet the needs of their leaders, not the people they con into subscribing to them?
Click to expand...

The party members, not the leaders, nominate almost every single candidate who runs for office.

There is a very simple reason why Ron Paul-type candidates are almost never nominated (let alone elected): That isn't what the American people want. The American people obviously want larger government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom