• 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!

Good Advice for Republicans in 2016

vesper said:
Baloney, sheer baloney. In 2010 Republicans won four seats held by retiring Democrats and Republicans defeated two incumbent Democrats, for a total gain of six seats. This was the largest number of Republicans gains since the 1994 elections. McCain nor Romney were hobbled by Cruz. They were losers because they didn't offer anything much different than the Democrats. What's to inspire voters who are clearly fed up with broken promises when you offer them Democrat-lite candidates. The voters because the GOP rallied around their establishment darlings (whom the media helped pick the losers) and who love big government as much as any Democrat and are arrogant enough to think they can do the same only better . And thanks to the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, looks like the Democrats got it all.

And just by looking at your list of states you claim were loses due to Cruz is Missouri where Clare Mccaskill's seat was being challenged by Todd Akin. Cruz had nothing to do with Akin getting hoodwinked by the media and stepped in it so deep he became toxic.

I'm really disappointed in you because this is a very dishonest post.
Click to expand...

Akin should never have been the nominee. He won via a Dem-Tea Party alliance. McCaskill's people worked to help him.
 
humbolt said:
Such tactics as defunding are satisfying in the moment. However, they don't constitute good policy over the longer term. The knife cuts both ways when Congress engages in such tactics. For example, it's pretty clear the public has rejected the ACA. Without having the means to offer a substitute that can actually become law, shutting down funding does nothing but provide political fodder for the opposition. In this scenario, Ryan is correct, no matter how frustrating or chafing that reality might be. I do agree that the House could've been more aggressive under Boehner, but there are practical political limits to that and it's unfair to hang those moments when Boehner could've done more on Ryan. What I'm talking about are matters of a few degrees here, and not the seismic shift you're hoping for. That comes with the consolidation of political power which necessarily has to include the WH, even if the Senate is lost to the left.
Click to expand...

Seismic shift? What pray tell are you talking about. My only point is that if they campaign as conservatives, they should govern as conservatives. They should follow through on what they tell their constituents they will do. At this point, establishment republicans are campaigning as conservatives and then governing to the left of center. At best they are governing as moderate democrats.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Freedom Caucus are fools whose exit would strengthen the Repubs.
Click to expand...

No offense, however you are living in a fantasy world. It is the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party types who put the republicans back in control of the House and Senate. If they exited, the GOP would quickly fall back to a minority party again. And if moderates were the majority of the republican base, why has there not been a "President Romney or President McCain? Moderate republicans running for president have not done well at any point in my lifetime. McCain, Romney, and Ford are prime examples. Those republican nominees who ran as conservatives were elected....Bush (W), Bush Sr, Reagan, Nixon, etc.
 
ObamacareFail said:
No offense, however you are living in a fantasy world. It is the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party types who put the republicans back in control of the House and Senate. If they exited, the GOP would quickly fall back to a minority party again. And if moderates were the majority of the republican base, why has there not been a "President Romney or President McCain? Moderate republicans running for president have not done well at any point in my lifetime. McCain, Romney, and Ford are prime examples. Those republican nominees who ran as conservatives were elected....Bush (W), Bush Sr, Reagan, Nixon, etc.
Click to expand...

Neither Bush (1 or 2), nor Reagan, nor Nixon would past muster with the kamikazes. Nixon, in fact, has been called "the last liberal President."
 
vesper said:
Jack I really like you but sometime I wonder what shoe you put on first the left or the right.

Here's a primer for ya payl

So called radio that you claim as "right wing" doesn't get their huge audiences because they can't figure out what to believe and have to have someone tell them what to believe. They tune in because 90% of the time they agree with what is being said.

And no the whole "illegal" a word you refused to use in regard to immigration is a main concern with a lot of Republicans for good reason.

And as far as Paul Ryan goes, you know that last omnibus he just passed with the votes that took Democrats to pass it should tell you something. Just about every Republican in the House majority is there because people like myself worked to get them there in hopes they would honor their promises and stop Obama's agenda. Some of them have been real disappointments.

Everything is f-ing out of control in Washington. The special interests are running the show. Obama has by-passed Congress and is using his pen and phone.

One of those special interests relates to climate change and there are a lot of regulations costing businesses and livelihoods because of it.

Yes conservatives are held to a different standard but the standards you have set forth I do not recognize as being conservative but milk toast and quite frankly that is why our country is in the pickle it is at this time.

No thank you on your advice. My candidate will be a constitutionalist and a true conservative. I friggin tired of milk toast. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Well said. I wish I could give you 20 likes on that post.
 
Jack Hays said:
And that is why you cause us to lose.
Click to expand...

What you are basically saying is that the GOP should stick to democrat-lite for the sake of wins for the republican party. What exactly are they winning when they do not govern as they campaign? They are selling a conservative ideology at the voting booth then taking a left turn after taking the oath. They are more afraid of their big donors and the media then their own constituents. That is sad.
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither Bush (1 or 2), nor Reagan, nor Nixon would past muster with the kamikazes. Nixon, in fact, has been called "the last liberal President."
Click to expand...

Nor Eisenhower or Ford.

I think you would struggle to find more than a couple Presidents from the last 120 years they could tolerate.
 
ObamacareFail said:
What you are basically saying is that the GOP should stick to democrat-lite for the sake of wins for the republican party. What exactly are they winning when they do not govern as they campaign?
Click to expand...

That's what Robespierre seemed to ask frequently.

Then of course those that questioned his judgment (and that of the masses) ended up meeting this:

article-1258613-04D8E2080000044D-824_224x369.jpg
 
ObamacareFail said:
What you are basically saying is that the GOP should stick to democrat-lite for the sake of wins for the republican party. What exactly are they winning when they do not govern as they campaign? They are selling a conservative ideology at the voting booth then taking a left turn after taking the oath. They are more afraid of their big donors and the media then their own constituents. That is sad.
Click to expand...

Elections are won by coalitions.
 
Fiddytree said:
Nor Eisenhower or Ford.

I think you would struggle to find more than a couple Presidents from the last 120 years they could tolerate.
Click to expand...

Or any Presidents that Democrats would accept. FDR...supported segregation. Carter was against gays in the military. Cripes, serving with him when governor was Lester Maddox! Clinton had sex with subordinates.

Etc. Etc.

It's 2016.
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Seismic shift? What pray tell are you talking about. My only point is that if they campaign as conservatives, they should govern as conservatives. They should follow through on what they tell their constituents they will do. At this point, establishment republicans are campaigning as conservatives and then governing to the left of center. At best they are governing as moderate democrats.
Click to expand...

I understand that congressional republicans campaigned offering certain promises, but they over-promised. Without a veto proof majority in the Senate, little they do will survive a veto. I agree that the House could've done more under Boehner, and it was frustrating to watch him dodge and defer. I don't believe it was advisable for Ryan to adopt a more confrontational approach to the budget because of the timing with Obama's term winding down and an election looming. Cutting funding might be satisfying, but the cuts will not survive the legislative process in the end and the political damage that results accrues to the GOP. That reality does suck from my perspective too, but it's time for the GOP to get all the factions within it on the same page. We should give Ryan the time and space to do that.
 
humbolt said:
I understand that congressional republicans campaigned offering certain promises, but they over-promised. Without a veto proof majority in the Senate, little they do will survive a veto. I agree that the House could've done more under Boehner, and it was frustrating to watch him dodge and defer. I don't believe it was advisable for Ryan to adopt a more confrontational approach to the budget because of the timing with Obama's term winding down and an election looming. Cutting funding might be satisfying, but the cuts will not survive the legislative process in the end and the political damage that results accrues to the GOP. That reality does suck from my perspective too, but it's time for the GOP to get all the factions within it on the same page. We should give Ryan the time and space to do that.
Click to expand...

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

He's trying! Change is badly needed, and it's unfortunate that he's being made out to be the one in the wrong. Makes me sympathize with anyone who has the job of herding a group of cats with below average intelligence! Someone should explain the concept of a clock as a way to measure time! :thumbdown:
 
polgara said:
Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

He's trying! Change is badly needed, and it's unfortunate that he's being made out to be the one in the wrong. Makes me sympathize with anyone who has the job of herding a group of cats with below average intelligence! Someone should explain the concept of a clock as a way to measure time! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

I think Ryan is trying, and we should give him the time to get it done. The moderate establishment types have to make common cause with the more conservative elements if they expect to get anything done. If Boehner failed at anything, that was his chief failure. But Ryan better not cry. There's no crying in Congress.
 
humbolt said:
I understand that congressional republicans campaigned offering certain promises, but they over-promised. Without a veto proof majority in the Senate, little they do will survive a veto. I agree that the House could've done more under Boehner, and it was frustrating to watch him dodge and defer. I don't believe it was advisable for Ryan to adopt a more confrontational approach to the budget because of the timing with Obama's term winding down and an election looming. Cutting funding might be satisfying, but the cuts will not survive the legislative process in the end and the political damage that results accrues to the GOP. That reality does suck from my perspective too, but it's time for the GOP to get all the factions within it on the same page. We should give Ryan the time and space to do that.
Click to expand...

Ryan will get a pass on that budget merely because it mostly had Boehner's footprints on it....however afterwards the honeymoon will be over. If he runs the house the way Boehner did, he will be tarred and feathered and run out of town as well. At some point Ryan will have to show that he is willing to stare down Obama and take back the power of the purse for the legislative branch.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think labels are useful. A winning Repub platform will require alliance with some people with whom you disagree about something.
Click to expand...

However that should go both ways. And it hasn't. That's why Boehner was run out of town. He was merely dictating and then punishing those who did not vote with the leadership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom