• 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!

Is the GOP Commiting Political Suicide?[W:11]

Re: Is the GOP Commiting Political Suicide?

Yeah, that's why Byrd never lost an election running as a democrat. :lamo

That's gonna leave a mark. :moon:whip.gif
 
I have to say, I believe your comment wrong on a few levels.

What I meant by constituency is the group of people a representative is represents in a given area. E.g. The consistence for former gov Rick Perry would have been Texas. NOT simply the people who voted for Rick Perry.

Do you think it would have been right for Rick Perry to ignore all the black and hispanic people there who didn't vote for him?

I'm afraid your idea of democracy is a bit worrying...

With all due respect, you are dead wrong.

con·stit·u·en·cy
kənˈstiCHo͞oənsē/Submit
noun
a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body.
"the politician who wishes to remain in the good graces of his constituency"

But I have to ask, what is it which is making you feel disillusioned with them currently?
Exactly what you are claiming to be worried about. They are not representing me. ;)

BTW, are you seriously suggesting that the likes of Nazi Pelosi is representing conservatives in the Bay Area?
 
Re: Is the GOP Commiting Political Suicide?

This conversation is over with.

I don't waste my time with liars.

Unless they are your liars. ;)

I suppose it would be asking too much to provide a little evidence of your silly claim? Yeah, never mind.
 
With all due respect, you are dead wrong.




Exactly what you are claiming to be worried about. They are not representing me. ;)

BTW, are you seriously suggesting that the likes of Nazi Pelosi is representing conservatives in the Bay Area?

Yes, Pelosi does. That is their JOB, to do what is best for EVERYone in their respective districts, including those who didn't vote for them. Just as to the world, Obama represents all of America...including you.
 
And yet, they own the US House, Senate and the majority of the state houses. What their constituency wants is antithetical to the changes you propose.

Ignoring how undemocratic that sounds, thats a pretty good point. Why change a seeming winning strategy to get into power?

However, please consider that many analysists believe that the GOP are gaining these seats because there is on average low voter turn out with people who would vote against them, and in addition low Democratic moral since Obamas election.

Also, voter turnout spikes for non-white voters during Presidential elections

But as I said, the demographics are shifting, eventually despite blacks and hispanics having lower turnouts, soon they'll make up enough of the population that the GOP can't rely on that anymore.

Thats why they must stage what they're doing and if the Democratics can get a Obama like candidate which doesn't disappoint them, the GOP will be in trouble.
 
Yes, Pelosi does. That is their JOB, to do what is best for EVERYone in their respective districts, including those who didn't vote for them. Just as to the world, Obama represents all of America...including you.

Not sure how you can say that with a straight face. Neither one represents my interests. In fact, quite the opposite. But you already knew that. :roll:
 
And yet, they own the US House, Senate and the majority of the state houses. What their constituency wants is antithetical to the changes you propose.


Ignoring how undemocratic that sounds, thats a pretty good point. Why change a seeming winning strategy to get into power?

However, please consider that many analysists believe that the GOP are gaining these seats because there is on average low voter turn out with people who would vote against them, and in addition low Democratic moral since Obamas election.

Also, voter turnout spikes for non-white voters during Presidential elections

But as I said, the demographics are shifting, eventually despite blacks and hispanics having lower turnouts, soon they'll make up enough of the population that the GOP can't rely on that anymore.

Thats why they must stage what they're doing and if the Democratics can get a Obama like candidate which doesn't disappoint them, the GOP will be in trouble.


What you pointed out to clownboy has been pointed out to them again and again and again, and they continually deny it...which is why they were so shocked in 2012. For about a month or so they had a moment of clarity - "We must reach out to the minorities" - and then they fell back into their xenophobic habits. Of course, when Hillary spanks whoever the GOP sacrificial candidate may be later this year, they'll come up with some excuse as to why it happened...and mark my words when I say that as time goes on, their excuse will be anything but what you just pointed out.
 
Not sure how you can say that with a straight face. Neither one represents my interests. In fact, quite the opposite. But you already knew that. :roll:

That, sir, is YOUR opinion. Not reality, but your opinion only...which is why reality tends to have a liberal bias.
 
That, sir, is YOUR opinion. Not reality, but your opinion only...which is why reality tends to have a liberal bias.

Right, I forgot libs always know what's best for everyone else. What was I thinking? :roll:
 
With all due respect, you are dead wrong.




Exactly what you are claiming to be worried about. They are not representing me. ;)

BTW, are you seriously suggesting that the likes of Nazi Pelosi is representing conservatives in the Bay Area?

Ok I admit, I used the wrong word, I should have just used representative, so a person who supposed to represent a group of people.

However, I stand by my question.

Do you think it would have been right for Rick Perry to ignore all the black and hispanic people there who didn't vote for him?

And do answer yours....not particularly, but I believe that she should represent everyone in the area she is responsible for.

You think she's a Nazi? I'm sorry, that's not the case at all.
 
Ok I admit, I used the wrong word, I should have just used representative, so a person who supposed to represent a group of people.

However, I stand by my question.

Do you think it would have been right for Rick Perry to ignore all the black and hispanic people there who didn't vote for him?

And do answer yours....not particularly, but I believe that she should represent everyone in the area she is responsible for.

You think she's a Nazi? I'm sorry, that's not the case at all.

Do you think it's right for Nazi Pelosi to ignore all of the conservative people who didn't vote for her?
 
Do you think it's right for Nazi Pelosi to ignore all of the conservative people who didn't vote for her?

No I don't, just like how other Democrats and how Republicans reps ignore the people who don't vote for them too. Those people pay live in those reps constituencies too, they pay taxes too, so they should have a say too, not just come election time.

I know what I'm saying wouldn't work in the current Representative democracy system we have now, thats why I am a Direct democracy Advocator (DDA). I believe everyone should have continuous say in how their areas (town, county/state/ country) is run
 
Last edited:
Right, I forgot libs always know what's best for everyone else. What was I thinking? :roll:

I didn't say we did. I only pointed out that elected officials represent everyone among the population in the district where they won. You don't want to accept that...and that's your opinion...and your problem, not mine.
 
No I don't, just like how other Democrats and how Republicans reps ignore the people who don't vote for them too. Those people pay live in those reps constituencies too, they pay taxes too, so they should have a say too, not just come election time.

I know what I'm saying wouldn't work in the current Representative democracy system we have now, thats why I am a Direct democracy Advocator (DDA). I believe everyone should have continuous say in how their areas (town, county/state/ country) is run

Do you have any examples of "direct democracy" working out well, historically? In my opinion, it's nothing more than a mob rule cluster****.
 
Do you have any examples of "direct democracy" working out well, historically? In my opinion, it's nothing more than a mob rule cluster****.

At the moment there are only a few cases where governments use direct democracy, which is Ireland and Switzerland, however, it is still within a representative democracy. Apart from that you have to go back to ancient Greece....and that was rather...limited to say the least.

However, I understand how and why you would think that. But I'd like to remind you thats how the British thought about Representative democracy before you Americans showed us a thing or two.

Surely the reason why we decided to have democracies in the first place was so that the governments of a country would mirror the people who lived in them? Since we now have much better technology to do this, surely it would be a good idea to start cutting out the middle men?

Am I wrong?
 
Hi All

I've been following American politics for about 10 years now and I have gradually been watching them become less welcoming towards Black/Hispanic and other minorities.

It's obvious at this point that they are mostly aiming for the support of just one (and still very large) demographic, which is the white/white male vote.

Fortunately for them, some minorities are so small they don't have to worry if they never vote of them, but what about the black and Hispanic vote?

I believe that soon the GOP will no longer be able to afford to continue to ignore these demographics, and if they do, they will cease to be a party which can compete in General Elections, and as cycles go by less significant (by percentage who vote) elections.

This is because as other demographics are growing at a faster rates, the White share of the vote is decreasing. As a result, by 2050 the White population will no longer be the majority of the US.

How can the party continue with their current sentiments towards blacks (currently 14% of pop) and Hispanics (17% of pop) when combined they'll make a greater share of the population?

Are they committing political suicide by continuing in this direction?

I've made a video which in part address this, you can find here



As usual, I'd like to here your thought.

DDAdvocator





Interesting but not surprising that a Brit would try to tell Americans what they need to do.

Further, you political experience is three congresses and one president for two terms and another for two years in the midst of a war on terror, and emerge an expert enough to predict the destruction of the oldest most stable party in America.

And not one reference, not one article read, offered or even hinted at.

But, you get the Razzie award for taking a Democratic talking point and turning into an epic, complete with video.

Amazing
 
Ignoring how undemocratic that sounds, thats a pretty good point. Why change a seeming winning strategy to get into power?

However, please consider that many analysists believe that the GOP are gaining these seats because there is on average low voter turn out with people who would vote against them, and in addition low Democratic moral since Obamas election.

Also, voter turnout spikes for non-white voters during Presidential elections

But as I said, the demographics are shifting, eventually despite blacks and hispanics having lower turnouts, soon they'll make up enough of the population that the GOP can't rely on that anymore.

Thats why they must stage what they're doing and if the Democratics can get a Obama like candidate which doesn't disappoint them, the GOP will be in trouble.

Doesn't sound undemocratic at all, in fact, just the opposite. In fact the US House and state legislatures are the most democratic parts of our system. They rely on the will of the people expressed through voting.

As the Hispanic block grows, and after the illegal issue is addressed one way or the other, I predict we'll see Hispanics flock to the republican side. It's a nasty truth, but whites have nothing on Hispanics where it comes to cultural racism. Hell, in Mexico they still find great humor in cartoons and even stamps depicting black face. Take a look around their television dial and it's crowded with lighter skin tones.

The "hispanic" vote is largely governed right now by one issue - amnesty. That won't be forever.
 
At the moment there are only a few cases where governments use direct democracy, which is Ireland and Switzerland, however, it is still within a representative democracy. Apart from that you have to go back to ancient Greece....and that was rather...limited to say the least.

However, I understand how and why you would think that. But I'd like to remind you thats how the British thought about Representative democracy before you Americans showed us a thing or two.

Surely the reason why we decided to have democracies in the first place was so that the governments of a country would mirror the people who lived in them? Since we now have much better technology to do this, surely it would be a good idea to start cutting out the middle men?

Am I wrong?

I think you are, yes. Direct democracy would be an administrative nightmare, and, as I said, little more than mob rule. Which is why, as I suspected, you were unable to cite any successes of it throughout history. There's a reason for that. ;)
 
At the moment there are only a few cases where governments use direct democracy, which is Ireland and Switzerland, however, it is still within a representative democracy. Apart from that you have to go back to ancient Greece....and that was rather...limited to say the least.

However, I understand how and why you would think that. But I'd like to remind you thats how the British thought about Representative democracy before you Americans showed us a thing or two.

Surely the reason why we decided to have democracies in the first place was so that the governments of a country would mirror the people who lived in them? Since we now have much better technology to do this, surely it would be a good idea to start cutting out the middle men?

Am I wrong?

Yeah, not so much wrong as uneducated in our history. For a more accurate view as to why our system is structured the way it is, read the Federalist Papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

Here they are in one handy spot. You'll find out that our founders detested the mob rule of direct democracy but wanted to preserve the will of the people. Pay particular attention to their discussions regarding the electoral college.
 
Interesting but not surprising that a Brit would try to tell Americans what they need to do.

Further, you political experience is three congresses and one president for two terms and another for two years in the midst of a war on terror, and emerge an expert enough to predict the destruction of the oldest most stable party in America.

And not one reference, not one article read, offered or even hinted at.

But, you get the Razzie award for taking a Democratic talking point and turning into an epic, complete with video.

Amazing

Your bossy brit point - ignored

Your political experience point - I'd like to add a Degree in Politics and International relations...if that makes you more comfortable, however, I hope it doesn't because I'd rather you judge me on what I said.

Your reference point - Good point, even though it was my first video, I should have done better with that. However, I've put a new video up today which should be of better standard, however, I do need to add more stuff to video description. I invite you to give me your opinion.

Democratic talking point...point, so do you think I was completely wrong?

And finally, thanks for watching at least
 
Your bossy brit point - ignored

Your political experience point - I'd like to add a Degree in Politics and International relations...if that makes you more comfortable, however, I hope it doesn't because I'd rather you judge me on what I said.

Your reference point - Good point, even though it was my first video, I should have done better with that. However, I've put a new video up today which should be of better standard, however, I do need to add more stuff to video description. I invite you to give me your opinion.

Democratic talking point...point, so do you think I was completely wrong?

And finally, thanks for watching at least
To some here that would be a bad thing, proving bias in one left-leaning political persuasion. Preferred are those who have no education in political process but rather rely on an inner voice, which I am sure they will insist comes from God almighty.
 
I think you are, yes. Direct democracy would be an administrative nightmare, and, as I said, little more than mob rule. Which is why, as I suspected, you were unable to cite any successes of it throughout history. There's a reason for that. ;)

...errmm there hasn't even been a case of a country which was run by direct democracy, that's why I can't cite one :/, however, the two countries which I did give seem to happy with what they've tried so far.

But as far as your administrative nightmare and mob rule goes; thats simply a lazy and cowards way of thinking and....

Here they are in one handy spot. You'll find out that our founders detested the mob rule of direct democracy but wanted to preserve the will of the people. Pay particular attention to their discussions regarding the electoral college.

Yes I am aware of the American founders detest of so called mob rule, so I never said they would have been in favour of direct democracy, I said they wanted representative democracy. And I should remind you the idea of mob rule was often peddled when the people of European countries wanted to move away from their monarchy. I brought the American founding up to show how they were the pioneers of democracy and how they had the courage to ignore the standard models of the state of that time

Now that we have the technology, I think we can take it a step further. I believe that these parties have become the new monarchs and representative democracy is failing, we've all seen the polls showing the correctional between voter beliefs and government action....it's disgraceful
 
To some here that would be a bad thing, proving bias in one left-leaning political persuasion. Preferred are those who have no education in political process but rather rely on an inner voice, which I am sure they will insist comes from God almighty.

I know, which is why I said I'd only like to be judged on the merits of my arguments only...but he started on about experience like it should be something that others should care about :/
 
Given that more than half of Governors are Republican, and the GOP controls both houses of Congress and holds overall majorities in both State Chambers, it doesn't appear that the current GOP platform is unpopular. However, it is clear that trends point towards difficulty in upcoming Presidential elections.

Adopting positions with which you disagree simply to gain votes is not a viable election strategy. Most of the groups you mention would not vote for a watered-down GOP, and current core GOP constituents would certainly not either.

The GOP has already largely acquiesced on issues of importance to its base, like immigration, and as a result a vacuum was created into which Trump has surged. Further acquiescing and flip-flopping would do the Party more harm than good, in both Presidential elections and on a local level.
 
Back
Top Bottom