• 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!

The End Of A Republican Party

calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?



malone-enten-gopcrackup-1.png



Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.
Click to expand...

As others have said, those voters are dying breed in several ways. I wonder what will happen in 8 to 10 years. They going to keep losing the white house if they can't figure something out.
 
Born Free said:
You missed a few years. I said Obama all by himself has raised the national debt more than all the presidents combined before him. Now go find a current chart and what Obama is borrowing in his last year.

Look at your chart, it shows Bush for 8 yrs and Obama for 3. I have to shake my head at the stuff you think people will fall for. Christ Obama outspent Bush in just 3 yrs. Now get the next 5 in there.
Click to expand...

if you did the real math, you'd see Obama borrowed at a lower rate than Jr Bush. But, no one beats Reagan for spiking the US Debt.

imrs.php
 
Born Free said:
You missed a few years. I said Obama all by himself has raised the national debt more than all the presidents combined before him. Now go find a current chart and what Obama is borrowing in his last year.

Look at your chart, it shows Bush for 8 yrs and Obama for 3. I have to shake my head at the stuff you think people will fall for. Christ Obama outspent Bush in just 3 yrs. Now get the next 5 in there.
Click to expand...

So...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/king-of-debt-donald-trump-now-is-the-time-to-borrow.html
 
The Republican party is on life support and it is their own darn fault.

They are the Party of Lincoln and many have forgotten the principles on which the party was founded. Today, they resemble the Whig party.

Whigs are best understood as trying to be many things to many people ready to abandon one deeply held ‘conviction’ for another in the drive for political power. They were very popular with those heavily engaged in commerce.

Too many politicians with the magic "R" behind their name are but a shell of what a Republican should be. In many ways they are no different than Democrats, they just think they can do big government better.

This is at the heart of the division in the party. One side wants to return to the principles on which the party was founded. The other more moderate types seem just fine with expanding the federal government. They also seem to be quite content with crony capitalism through their relationship with the Chamber of Commerce who has been very successful in influencing politicians on laws favoring corporations through subsidies etc. often at the cost of small businesses.

The moderate Republicans have really ticked off the Constitutionalist conservative base and libertarians because they have abandoned Republican Party principles. People are angry and that has resulted in this new movement called the alt-right Nationalist Populists that doesn't resemble the party of Lincoln either.

Things are a mess. I personally believe it is time for Constitutionalist conservatives and Libertarians to break from the establishment and start a new party. I like the name "New Federalists Party". The blue dog Democrats and the moderate Republicans could merge as one party because there is little difference between the two. That would leave the fringe left and the alt-right Nationalist Populists to form their own parties.

It sure would clarify who stands for what. No more big tents.
 
Last edited:
1st thing the GOP has to do is shut up the far right social conservatives in their party. The GOP will continue to lose the younger people and the Moderates if they hold to their far right conservative social agenda. Most younger people and Moderates don't care who marries who, or about abortion, or planed parenthood, and aren't anti-government about every single issue. Etc. I thought Trump would stay to the center on most of those issues, I was wrong, he even caved to the far right of the GOP.

Yes, thanks to the AM conservative talking heads and FOX and other con media outlets the social cons scream the loudest and make the most noise. So the GOP has allowed the social cons of their party, which is a pretty small % of their party, to take over and run the GOP. That's got to stop, or on the national stage they will continue to lose elections.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The republican party has been disconnected from most of the voters for years.
This year was the boil over point. And still with what has happened the establishment
republicans still do not get it. I don't think they ever will.

The left loves to push the narrative that college educated people don't vote for xxxxx.
First who has been in charge in Washington and created this massive mess? College educated men and women!
If you have a plumbing problem who do you want a Phd or a plumber? Give me a trade educated person anytime. :)
Click to expand...

In a way, I guess you could view Trump as that hands on, practical experience plumber, as opposed to PhD theorists the electorate has been electing for years now.
 
No, this isn't going to be the end of the Republican party nor the end of conservatism, or any of it's flavors. All of these things will have to change and adapt to better serve and better represent their constituency, which is constantly changing. Republican party and conservatism have to catch up with their constituency.

You can see that this change is already well underway in the Republican / conservatism camp(s), with a political outsider, a non party elite, such as Trump gaining the nomination.

You can see a similar, although different, change, that Democrats / liberalism has barely started at this point.

The mere fact that a far left Bernie gained as much traction with the electorate and gained as many votes as he had in the primary, is a major wake up call and major concern to the party elite. Their demonstrations against the party elite's chosen candidate at the DNC is a clear indicate as to how deep the rift is between the electorate and the party elite. The party elite don't want to lose power and control. How they maintain it and the impact of trying to do so is going to be interesting, the most interesting aspect will be how they avoid to alienate their constituency, or not, in the process.

And again, no, this isn't going to be the end of the Democratic party, nor liberalism. Both of these things will have to change and adapt to better serve better represent their constituency, which is constantly changing. The Democratic party and liberalism also has to catch up their constituency.
 
vesper said:
The Republican party is on life support and it is their own darn fault.

They are the Party of Lincoln and many have forgotten the principles on which the party was founded. Today, they resemble the Whig party.

Whigs are best understood as trying to be many things to many people ready to abandon one deeply held ‘conviction’ for another in the drive for political power. They were very popular with those heavily engaged in commerce.

Too many politicians with the magic "R" behind their name are but a shell of what a Republican should be. In many ways they are no different than Democrats, they just think they can do big government better.

This is at the heart of the division in the party. One side wants to return to the principles on which the party was founded. The other more moderate types seem just fine with expanding the federal government. They also seem to be quite content with crony capitalism through their relationship with the Chamber of Commerce who has been very successful in influencing politicians on laws favoring corporations through subsidies etc. often at the cost of small businesses.

The moderate Republicans have really ticked off the Constitutionalist conservative base and libertarians because they have abandoned Republican Party principles. People are angry and that has resulted in this new movement called the alt-right Nationalist Populists that doesn't resemble the party of Lincoln either.

Things are a mess. I personally believe it is time for Constitutionalist conservatives and Libertarians to break from the establishment and start a new party. I like the name "New Federalists Party". The blue dog Democrats and the moderate Republicans could merge as one party because there is little difference between the two. That would leave the fringe left and the alt-right Nationalist Populists to form their own parties.

It sure would clarify who stands for what. No more big tents.
Click to expand...

I agree we need at least 1 or 2 more parties. I think their are many people that are forced to chose the lesser of 2 evils because of the 2 party system.

Let's take marriage as an example. The far fight believes it should be between a man and a woman as do I. However I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women getting married. I am simply following my Christian religious beliefs. However I respect other peoples beliefs and think marriage between 2 men, 2 women, or multiple women and men should be allowed and acknowledged by our government. I consider marriage a private decision between the people involved and the government should not be involved with that decision. The government should only acknowledge the decision of the people involved. I also think the government should treat people equally which means acknowledge and respecting our right to marry who we choose or not. There should be no problem for 2 people who do not believe in marriage to be treated the same under the law as people who do get married. The government has no business marrying anyone. The Government should acknowledge all marriages and beliefs of all the people. The only reason government is involved in marriage is control. It wants the power over the people instead of supporting the wishes of the people.

I wish I had a 3rd choice which removes government from marriage and doesn't offer special benefits and privileges to those who submit to government ruling over the private lives of the people.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
So...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/king-of-debt-donald-trump-now-is-the-time-to-borrow.html
Click to expand...

From the site you posted

The U.S. is nearly $20 trillion in debt, a number that has almost doubled under President Barack Obama.

And you say SO, and then you point to Trump as the king of debt, yes he is, look at his empire. He would borrow to buy land and then borrow to build and then sell it to pay back the loan and end up making millions on the deal. How smart is that.

Now compare that to Obama who doubled the national debt more than all the presidents combined before him. And what do we have to show for all that money borrowed. I'll tell you a 1% GDP growth, the worst recovery since WWII. That's what.
 
SDET said:
You like the idea of a one party state do ya?
Click to expand...

To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals.
Click to expand...
- Autobiographical dictation, 24 January 1906. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 1 (University of California Press, 2010)
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I agree we need at least 1 or 2 more parties. I think their are many people that are forced to chose the lesser of 2 evils because of the 2 party system.

Let's take marriage as an example. The far fight believes it should be between a man and a woman as do I. However I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women getting married. I am simply following my Christian religious beliefs. However I respect other peoples beliefs and think marriage between 2 men, 2 women, or multiple women and men should be allowed and acknowledged by our government. I consider marriage a private decision between the people involved and the government should not be involved with that decision. The government should only acknowledge the decision of the people involved. I also think the government should treat people equally which means acknowledge and respecting our right to marry who we choose or not. There should be no problem for 2 people who do not believe in marriage to be treated the same under the law as people who do get married. The government has no business marrying anyone. The Government should acknowledge all marriages and beliefs of all the people. The only reason government is involved in marriage is control. It wants the power over the people instead of supporting the wishes of the people.

I wish I had a 3rd choice which removes government from marriage and doesn't offer special benefits and privileges to those who submit to government ruling over the private lives of the people.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

When it comes to social issues. I have never felt it should be the business of the Federal government on such things.
Things like marriage and abortion should be left to the states and its voters. These things never would have made it to the SC if Federal judges who made rulings on emotion instead of law were rejected. Unfortunately they were not.
Ironically it was 5 SC jurists that were appointments by Republican presidents that stripped the rights from the states on abortion in Roe v Wade. It was a Republican president's appointee that stopped Obamacare from being overturned. It was another Republican president's appointee that was the deciding vote to strip states of their rights on marriage and making same sex marriage the law of the land.

On the other hand I think states need to become less dependent on federal government funds. They have become welfare states relying on handouts from the Federal government. They should be taking care of their own education and welfare programs for starters and not looking for any subsidies from the Federal government that give special treatment to certain companies and corporations that reside in their states. But hey that's how a true Federalist thinks. The Republican party once held those principles. Not so much these days by several.
In fact the establishment despises those who do hold to such beliefs and have been targeting Constitutionalist Conservatives running in primaries and putting up candidates funded by the Chamber of Commerce to take them out. The establishment would love to see the party purged of Constitutionalist Conservatives. There are at least 4 primaries today I am waiting for the results to see if the crony capitalists funded by the Chamber of Commerce or the Constitutionalist Conservative funded by the grassroots wins.
 
vesper said:
Thank you for your response.
Click to expand...

Your welcome.

vesper said:
Things like marriage and abortion should be left to the states and its voters. These things never would have made it to the SC if Federal judges who made rulings on emotion instead of law were rejected. Unfortunately they were not.
Ironically it was 5 SC jurists that were appointments by Republican presidents that stripped the rights from the states on abortion in Roe v Wade. It was a Republican president's appointee that stopped Obamacare from being overturned. It was another Republican president's appointee that was the deciding vote to strip states of their rights on marriage and making same sex marriage the law of the land.
Click to expand...

I agree that breaking government down into levels from federal to local makes good sense. I wouldn't want each state making trade agreements with other countries. I also wouldn't want the people in Hawaii making decisions on plowing the snow in Vermont.

However I do not need government deciding who I marry or live with. Not federal, state or local government. This a private decision between consenting adults. No government is needed to tell me if it is OK or not.
 
Born Free said:
From the site you posted

The U.S. is nearly $20 trillion in debt, a number that has almost doubled under President Barack Obama.

And you say SO, and then you point to Trump as the king of debt, yes he is, look at his empire. He would borrow to buy land and then borrow to build and then sell it to pay back the loan and end up making millions on the deal. How smart is that.

Now compare that to Obama who doubled the national debt more than all the presidents combined before him. And what do we have to show for all that money borrowed. I'll tell you a 1% GDP growth, the worst recovery since WWII. That's what.
Click to expand...

Obama did? The president controls the purse strings? You want to bet on it?
 
vesper said:
Thank you for your response.

When it comes to social issues. I have never felt it should be the business of the Federal government on such things.
Things like marriage and abortion should be left to the states and its voters. These things never would have made it to the SC if Federal judges who made rulings on emotion instead of law were rejected. Unfortunately they were not.
Ironically it was 5 SC jurists that were appointments by Republican presidents that stripped the rights from the states on abortion in Roe v Wade. It was a Republican president's appointee that stopped Obamacare from being overturned. It was another Republican president's appointee that was the deciding vote to strip states of their rights on marriage and making same sex marriage the law of the land.

On the other hand I think states need to become less dependent on federal government funds. They have become welfare states relying on handouts from the Federal government. They should be taking care of their own education and welfare programs for starters and not looking for any subsidies from the Federal government that give special treatment to certain companies and corporations that reside in their states. But hey that's how a true Federalist thinks. The Republican party once held those principles. Not so much these days by several.
In fact the establishment despises those who do hold to such beliefs and have been targeting Constitutionalist Conservatives running in primaries and putting up candidates funded by the Chamber of Commerce to take them out. The establishment would love to see the party purged of Constitutionalist Conservatives. There are at least 4 primaries today I am waiting for the results to see if the crony capitalists funded by the Chamber of Commerce or the Constitutionalist Conservative funded by the grassroots wins.
Click to expand...

States have rights? I love how the Goldwater defense has become the battle hymn of the GOP.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?



malone-enten-gopcrackup-1.png



Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.
Click to expand...

The republican party is evolving. They will come around to embracing some social issues, but still hold the purse strings tight. They are not going to disappear in the near futureIMO.
 
CriticalThought said:
Obama did? The president controls the purse strings? You want to bet on it?
Click to expand...

They don't control the purse strings when there is no budget and congress does not act. I guess you could say the same for Reagan, that you lefties keep saying HE raised the national debt.
 
Born Free said:
They don't control the purse strings when there is no budget and congress does not act. I guess you could say the same for Reagan, that you lefties keep saying HE raised the national debt.
Click to expand...

So who has controlled the purse strings through most of the massive increases in national debt? I am assuming that is the House of Representatives, so who has presided over it?
 
Carleen said:
The republican party is evolving. They will come around to embracing some social issues, but still hold the purse strings tight. They are not going to disappear in the near futureIMO.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? The Alt Right got there Glorious Leader installed as the GOP nominee. How is that evolution on social issues?
 
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that the GOP was down for the count, I would buy a round of drinks for the whole thread!
 
Carleen said:
The republican party is evolving. They will come around to embracing some social issues, but still hold the purse strings tight. They are not going to disappear in the near futureIMO.
Click to expand...

If they did that, they's be alright. The GOP in my state is that way, btw.
 
calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?



malone-enten-gopcrackup-1.png



Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.
Click to expand...
The GOP is changing, before long it will split, there is no other recourse, But before you toot your horn too loudly remember that the Democrat Party is also very divided these days and the odds are that the Party will end up splitting in the next decade. Americans are changing politically, too bad it is too late.
 
FieldTheorist said:
You can see Democratic membership increasing, but you probably can't back that feeling up with numbers.
Click to expand...

It's always fluid, but this year the flow is terrible for the GOP. Trump only leads in one demographic--old white men. Incredibly, he lost white women. On top of losing everyone else, he's also lagging Romeny in White men overall.
trump-s-real-problem-is-with-white-voters_chartbuilder_custom-1f7d17139c23211a8620d3e60440b470cd91de19-s300-c85.png
 
CriticalThought said:
So who has controlled the purse strings through most of the massive increases in national debt? I am assuming that is the House of Representatives, so who has presided over it?
Click to expand...

When did Obama ever submit a budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom