• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Republican Party has become a Radical Party

Matt Foley said:
Globalist scum, globalist scum, globalist scum, globalist scum



Globalist scum are godless satan worshipers.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by globalist? Are you insinuating that free trade and globalization are bad?
 
I think there's something to the argument. The TP represent the far right, not mainstream Republicans. The Republicans embraced them in 2010 because they thought it would win them Congress. They were almost right. The Republicans were happy with this arrangement, but now are finding that the TP control them, which is not what they imagined.

To me, TPers are Republicans about as much as Socialists are Democrats. The TP is to the right of what the Republican party used to represent, which was slightly right of center. Romney represents the old Republican party, and it will be very hard for the GOP to win the election when they're battling over the soul of the party.

In the end, Romney winning the nomination will give a choice in November between a little to the right of center (Romney), and a little to the left of center (Obama). Which is how it's supposed to work. TPers will either hold their nose and vote for Romney, or get 4 more years of Obama.
 
cpwill said:
these would be the "conservative democrats" who vote for Nancy Pelosi to take the House Chair,
Click to expand...

Umm if there is ONE vote on which the political parties expect their members to fall in line, it's voting for their own party for leadership positions. If they don't do that, then they're of no use to the party at all. It has nothing to do with ideology, it's all about institutional politics.

and who voted for Obamacare?
Click to expand...

You mean the same health care proposal which Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts, Bob Dole advocated in the 1990s, and the Heritage Foundation created in the 1980s? The same health care proposal which Jim DeMint, patron saint of the Republican Party, heaped praise on in 2007 (i.e. Romneycare) and said that we should use as a model for the nation?

Yeah, how radical of those conservative Democrats to vote for it. :roll:
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
I think there's something to the argument. The TP represent the far right, not mainstream Republicans. The Republicans embraced them in 2010 because they thought it would win them Congress. They were almost right. The Republicans were happy with this arrangement, but now are finding that the TP control them, which is not what they imagined.

To me, TPers are Republicans about as much as Socialists are Democrats. The TP is to the right of what the Republican party used to represent, which was slightly right of center. Romney represents the old Republican party, and it will be very hard for the GOP to win the election when they're battling over the soul of the party.

In the end, Romney winning the nomination will give a choice in November between a little to the right of center (Romney), and a little to the left of center (Obama). Which is how it's supposed to work. TPers will either hold their nose and vote for Romney, or get 4 more years of Obama.
Click to expand...

hmmph, I don't find the TPM to be "far right"
I mean, their whole message was " stop spending money we don't have" and " yeah, you ain't raising our taxes to make up for your recklessness"

that's hardly a "far right" stance
 
Just something that occurred to me, perhaps something to consider.

If we go back a a couple centuries to a bit before the Civil War, a somewhat similar polarization of politics was happening. Both parties were becoming extremely intolerant of each other, so much that they couldn't agree on almost anything. There was no shades of grey, and each side fought vehemently for their side, either being pro or anti slavery. If a piece of pro slavery legislation was introduced, everyone on the anti slavery wagon would scream and kick and pout, and if a piece of anti slavery legislation was introduced, everyone on the pro slavery wagon would scream and kick and pout. And of course, it got so bad they started shooting at each other. And I find something somewhat similar happening in today's politics, although I'm not saying its going to end in a civil war. The parties just cannot compromise with each other, or in general work together at all. Its kinda like a pendulum now, we either have to go one way or another kinda thing, where we go one way, then another president is elected and we go the other. There appears to be less and less common ground every day.
 
400321 said:
Just something that occurred to me, perhaps something to consider.

If we go back a a couple centuries to a bit before the Civil War, a somewhat similar polarization of politics was happening. Both parties were becoming extremely intolerant of each other, so much that they couldn't agree on almost anything. There was no shades of grey, and each side fought vehemently for their side, either being pro or anti slavery. If a piece of pro slavery legislation was introduced, everyone on the anti slavery wagon would scream and kick and pout, and if a piece of anti slavery legislation was introduced, everyone on the pro slavery wagon would scream and kick and pout. And of course, it got so bad they started shooting at each other. And I find something somewhat similar happening in today's politics, although I'm not saying its going to end in a civil war. The parties just cannot compromise with each other, or in general work together at all. Its kinda like a pendulum now, we either have to go one way or another kinda thing, where we go one way, then another president is elected and we go the other. There appears to be less and less common ground every day.
Click to expand...

While I applaud you for looking, we must also consider the incredible number of times division has taken hold of American politics. Party division had been important during the 1830s, the 1870s, the 1910s, the 1950s, the 1960s-1970s, etc. I mean you go on and on and on.
 
johnny_rebson said:
I sincerely doubt that the GOP base will rally around him in sufficient numbers in the general election.

I do object to the claim that Republicans are now radicals. Are we no longer allowed to expect the candidates from our party share our conservative views?
Click to expand...

yeah all you obama supporters won't vote for him

those of us who realize that Obama is a menace to America's greatness will vote for whomever the GOP nominates
 
GoTim1985 said:
So essentially, the whole time? :)
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is more extreme than others (cue Charles Sumner), but on the whole, yes. Quite normal. In regards to social data, I am more skeptical of the political scientist's ability to claim with certainty that we are in an exceptional moment of utter partisanship, yet there is that claim, backed with data.
 
Ambrose Bierce, 1882:

The public officials of this favored country are, as a rule, so bad that calumniation is a compliment. Our best men, with here and there an exception, have been driven out of public life, or made afraid to enter it. Unless attracted by the salary, why should a gentleman “aspire” to the presidency of the United States? During his canvas he will have from his own party a support that should make him blush, and from all others an opposition that will stick at nothing to accomplish his satisfactory defamation. After his election his partition and allotment of the loaves and fishes will estrange an important and thenceforth implacable faction of his following without appeasing anyone else. At the finish of his term the utmost that he can expect in the way of reward is that not much more than one-half of his countrymen will believe him a scoundrel to the end of their days.
Click to expand...
 
Dragonfly said:
Let the facts show....in terms of percentage....Obama does not equal Reagan.

PresidentialDebt.org - United States US National Debt by President since 1976

Don't look at dollar amounts....look at overall percentage. That's apples to apples.

The REPUBLICANS are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to massive spending, massive government, and the massive cesspool we are all now living in.

It is certainly not one persons fault, nor is it ALL OBAMA's fault.

You are being dishonest and blind if you chose to pin the entire world's economy, and the entire country's problems only on Obama.
Click to expand...

Why not look at dollar amounts, the last time I checked, debts aren't paid in percentage points, they're paid in dollars. You don't want to look at dollar amounts because it makes Obama look like Ospender.

The difference between Reagan and Obama? Reagan took on debt and brought Russia to its knees. Obama has taken on tons of debt and taken America to its knees.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
While I applaud you for looking, we must also consider the incredible number of times division has taken hold of American politics. Party division had been important during the 1830s, the 1870s, the 1910s, the 1950s, the 1960s-1970s, etc. I mean you go on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Suppose I should have researched a bit more before I said anything :doh
 
Fiddytree said:
While I applaud you for looking, we must also consider the incredible number of times division has taken hold of American politics. Party division had been important during the 1830s, the 1870s, the 1910s, the 1950s, the 1960s-1970s, etc. I mean you go on and on and on.
Click to expand...

While I hesitate to take on someone who is my superior in the realm of American intellectual history, I have to take issue with your depiction. The breaks in the 60's (and, to a lesser extent, the 50's and 70's) were intra party division.
 
cpwill said:
While I hesitate to take on someone who is my superior in the realm of American intellectual history, I have to take issue with your depiction. The breaks in the 60's (and, to a lesser extent, the 50's and 70's) were intra party division.
Click to expand...

And guess what economic beliefs the dixiecrats had stretching back hundreds of years, dixiecrats who were absorbed into the Republican Party during the 60's racial exchange.
 
Camlon said:
Res Cogitans: I agree with you, but you have no arguments.

Although I will say the GOP has become a divided party. The radicals are fighting the corrupt leadership represented by Mitt Romney. The fiscal conservatives and the libertarians are ignored.
Click to expand...

The bolded part happened a long time ago. Furthermore the GOP likes to pretend it's fiscally conservative, but it's not. The Ryan plan by its own math increases the deficit. If Ryan actually gave a **** about balancing the budget, he'd enact his cuts and immediately end the Bush tax cuts and revert the capital gains tax to ordinary rates. That would bring America back to the black far faster then anything the GOP or Dems have proposed.

People who are honest and who can do math know we have to raise taxes and cut services. You cannot rely upon just 1 to do the job. Anyone who argues otherwise is either stupid or dishonest.
 
Dragonfly said:
You're obviously not paying attention to reality.

Obama wins by not being any of the other guys.
He's the least frightening, and least offense choice out there.

He's the lessor of two evils. Especially if the other evil is anyone but Romney.
Click to expand...



Don't be think like that Romney is the next one
 
i hope americans dont experience a real radicalism:mrgreen:
 
400321 said:
Just something that occurred to me, perhaps something to consider.

If we go back a a couple centuries to a bit before the Civil War, a somewhat similar polarization of politics was happening. Both parties were becoming extremely intolerant of each other, so much that they couldn't agree on almost anything. There was no shades of grey, and each side fought vehemently for their side, either being pro or anti slavery. If a piece of pro slavery legislation was introduced, everyone on the anti slavery wagon would scream and kick and pout, and if a piece of anti slavery legislation was introduced, everyone on the pro slavery wagon would scream and kick and pout. And of course, it got so bad they started shooting at each other. And I find something somewhat similar happening in today's politics, although I'm not saying its going to end in a civil war. The parties just cannot compromise with each other, or in general work together at all. Its kinda like a pendulum now, we either have to go one way or another kinda thing, where we go one way, then another president is elected and we go the other. There appears to be less and less common ground every day.
Click to expand...

Excellent observation. I used to teach American History out of a text which had a chapter entitled THE FAILURE OF THE POLITICIANS. It was about the decade of the 1850's and how this polarization set the stage for the Civil War and over 600,000 dead.
 
haymarket said:
Excellent observation. I used to teach American History out of a text which had a chapter entitled THE FAILURE OF THE POLITICIANS. It was about the decade of the 1850's and how this polarization set the stage for the Civil War and over 600,000 dead.
Click to expand...

The Civil War was started by the "radical" Libertarians, Oops I meant Dixiecrats. They opposed Tariffs, they opposed "The American System".

American System (economic plan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somehow the rich southern aristocrats managed to convince the poor southern whites to oppose the American System too. Hmmmmm. I think I know how they did it, white identity politics; threat of black political power. You know what, they were right, but wrong about the "American System" which was the true object of the struggle between the rich aristocrats and everyone else. Same thing is happening today.
 
Matt Foley said:
The Civil War was started by the "radical" Libertarians, Oops I meant Dixiecrats. They opposed Tariffs, they opposed "The American System".

American System (economic plan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somehow the rich southern aristocrats managed to convince the poor southern whites to oppose the American System too. Hmmmmm. I think I know how they did it, white identity politics; threat of black political power. You know what, they were right, but wrong about the "American System" which was the true object of the struggle between the rich aristocrats and everyone else. Same thing is happening today.
Click to expand...

Yes, all the "black political power" slaves had in the 1850s. You're out of your mind.
 
"Pick any other Republican in the country. He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama,"
(Rick Santorum)

"Quit distorting my words. It's bulls---."
(Rick Santorum)

"Rick Santorum is becoming more desperate and angry and unhinged every day, he sees conservatives coalescing around Mitt Romney and he's rattled by the backlash caused by his suggestion that keeping Barack Obama would be better than electing a Republican."
(Romney spokesman Ryan Williams)

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-romney-worst-republican-face-obama-235654943.html
Click to expand...
Liberals can only hope that Santorum can eke out a victory in Pennsylvania and keep the campaign going to the bitter end.

The longer this lasts, the more time it allows the Romney and Santorum wings of the party to continue bashing each other - the one thing conservatives are good at.

Both already qualify as wounded candidates - and there's still 5 more months of "blood letting" to go!
 
Last edited:
jgarden47 said:
Liberals can only hope that Santorum can eke out a victory in Pennsylvania and keep the campaign going to the bitter end.

The longer this lasts, the more time it allows the Romney and Santorum wings of the party to continue bashing each other - the one thing conservatives are good at.

Both already qualify as wounded candidates - and there's still 5 more months of "blood letting" to go!
Click to expand...



Not gonna argue the "who wins what", the only thing I'm interested in is who gets the final nod. Because that will be the Repub that gets my vote. And if the Supremes smack down Obamacare, that's just one more failure the Repub candidate will have to use against him in the 2012 race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom