• 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!

Republican Party seems as divided, angry as ever

j-mac said:
Wow, dictionary definitions I have found, are only brought out when there isn't a good answer to the question...What is your definition of how you lean politically?
Click to expand...

Me, I am a fiscally conservative to a certain degree, socially liberal, and have no issue with the projection of US power overseas


j-mac said:
I know what you said, but that doesn't answer my question....Want to try again?
Click to expand...

If I'm sure Obama will make decisions I disagree with, most would assume that I am not a fan of his presidency.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Me, I am a fiscally conservative to a certain degree, socially liberal, and have no issue with the projection of US power overseas..[/QUOTE

Ok, I can see that to a degree. I think that most people are compassionate for those that have problems, or run into hard times. However, the social policy these days is in direct opposition to fiscal sanity of any measure.

If I'm sure Obama will make decisions I disagree with, most would assume that I am not a fan of his presidency.
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess what I am getting at is, if you want to tell us, did you vote for Obama, Romney, or 3rd party?
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Dr. Chuckles said:
Me, I am a fiscally conservative to a certain degree, socially liberal, and have no issue with the projection of US power overseas..[/QUOTE

Ok, I can see that to a degree. I think that most people are compassionate for those that have problems, or run into hard times. However, the social policy these days is in direct opposition to fiscal sanity of any measure.



Ok, I guess what I am getting at is, if you want to tell us, did you vote for Obama, Romney, or 3rd party?
Click to expand...

in 2008 I voted Cynthia McKinny because I saw the greens as the most viable third party that year. This year I voted Johnson
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
in 2008 I voted Cynthia McKinny because I saw the greens as the most viable third party that year. This year I voted Johnson
Click to expand...

Cynthia Mckinney? Really? You mean the same Cynthia McKinney that

Was a 9/11 truther
Anti war activist
introduced articles of impeachment against Bush
Supports Hamas against Israel
Was arguably the dumbest woman to serve in congress?

That Mckinney?

Gary Johnson ok, but at this deeply important time in history, I think that Johnson Indy's threw their votes away on a candidate that they knew couldn't have a chance at winning, therefore were ok to see Obama re elected so that they could preserve their own smug superiority complex....

But that's just me....I take you at your word that you want fiscal responsibility, but I think you need to reconcile the social spending side with that fiscal responsible side.
 
j-mac said:
Cynthia Mckinney? Really? You mean the same Cynthia McKinney that

Was a 9/11 truther
Anti war activist
introduced articles of impeachment against Bush
Supports Hamas against Israel
Was arguably the dumbest woman to serve in congress?

That Mckinney?
Click to expand...

Yes, hence the foot note about it being the only viable third party, not her politics (please don't waste my time by trying to argue she had an actual chance at becoming POTUS). The same was true of Johnson, as well


j-mac said:
Gary Johnson ok, but at this deeply important time in history, I think that Johnson Indy's threw their votes away on a candidate that they knew couldn't have a chance at winning, therefore were ok to see Obama re elected so that they could preserve their own smug superiority complex....
Click to expand...

No, I just have no interest in belonging to a party that is having a serious debate on evolution.
 
wolfman24 said:
Getting rid of the Teas would be a start. Let the Reps line up over that then go on from there
Click to expand...

Yes. I think the GOP has finally came to the stinging realization they need to distance themselves from the Tea Party mindset if they are to have any chance of survival in future elections. I do not suspect the pockets of the nation who elect these tea party officials, to accept that realization lightly. They are a very proud and determined bunch and they are convinced their positions are right and America should follow their lead. They may be a small bunch but they are a mighty bunch. I do not expect them to go down without a fight. The Tea Party is not large enough to form a party of their own so they have no choice but to camp with the GOP. The Tea Party segments of society are needed by the GOP to enable the GOP to have sufficient numbers to compete with the democrats so it's kind of give and take. They need each other.

I think it will take a couple of election cycles before the GOP and the Tea Party will be able to come to terms and find a common platform that will be attractive enough to sway the majority of voters to come back.

Or, The GOP can cut ties entirely and just rebuild. I think with the Christies, jingals, and Rubios', they got a pretty good line-up to build on. I think this would be their best move. Kick the TP to the curb.
 
Captain America said:
Yes. I think the GOP has finally came to the stinging realization they need to distance themselves from the Tea Party mindset if they are to have any chance of survival in future elections. I do not suspect the pockets of the nation who elect these tea party officials, to accept that realization lightly. They are a very proud and determined bunch and they are convinced their positions are right and America should follow their lead. They may be a small bunch but they are a mighty bunch. I do not expect them to go down without a fight. The Tea Party is not large enough to form a party of their own so they have no choice but to camp with the GOP. The Tea Party segments of society are needed by the GOP to enable the GOP to have sufficient numbers to compete with the democrats so it's kind of give and take. They need each other.

I think it will take a couple of election cycles before the GOP and the Tea Party will be able to come to terms and find a common platform that will be attractive enough to sway the majority of voters to come back.

Or, The GOP can cut ties entirely and just rebuild. I think with the Christies, jingals, and Rubios', they got a pretty good line-up to build on. I think this would be their best move. Kick the TP to the curb.
Click to expand...

Yepper. BTW the group will be up and running by Tuesday I think./
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yes, hence the foot note about it being the only viable third party, not her politics (please don't waste my time by trying to argue she had an actual chance at becoming POTUS). The same was true of Johnson, as well




No, I just have no interest in belonging to a party that is having a serious debate on evolution.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are waiting for a purist that you can agree with totally, then you'd save the gas and stay home....I don't say that to be insulting, just the fact.
 
Captain America said:
Or, The GOP can cut ties entirely and just rebuild. I think with the Christies, jingals, and Rubios', they got a pretty good line-up to build on. I think this would be their best move. Kick the TP to the curb.
Click to expand...
Huh? Jindal and Rubio are still there after you “kick the TP to the curb”? Did you actually buy Jindal decrying ‘dumbed-down conservatism’ as anything other than a blatantly hypocritical facade? Never mind his couple year past bumper sticker hate-on for public safety against natural disasters while Gov of the state hit by Katrina (volcano monitoring), even if you don’t live in LA it does not take much effort to see that even at this moment he is practicing exactly what he supposedly rails against with law and support for undermining science education, among other things.

Truth is that any political strength he has flows from the same basic thing (if not a lot of the same people) that makes the TP tick, and that if he tried to materially change from that he’d be deadman walking in LA.

Rubio, who owes the TP a lot for his Congress seat, is at least somewhat in the same boat. Thus his recent bizzaro evolution-creationism tap-dance
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Well, if you are waiting for a purist that you can agree with totally, then you'd save the gas and stay home....I don't say that to be insulting, just the fact.
Click to expand...

1) nope. I'll continue voting as I see fit

2) I'm not waiting for a purist, just someone that can reconcile their personal views with science.

That isn't exactly unreasonable
 
wolfman24 said:
Getting rid of the Teas would be a start. Let the Reps line up over that then go on from there
Click to expand...

It depends on the Teas; they come in different flavors. I'm not a fan of the Coch-flavored tea. It leaves a bitter aftertaste then makes me want to click my heels and give a stiff arm salute. Local Teas are much nicer; who doesn't want our elected officials to pay more attention to our nation and their constituents instead of simply focusing on special interests? Who doesn't want our elected reps to be more responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to running our nation into debt or filling bills with pork?
 
wolfman24 said:
I would hope this includes abortion even if limited.
Click to expand...

I seem to have stumbled onto a parallel universe here.

The country is $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, unemployment remains consistently high, more people are on food stamps than ever before and there are still those who believe the issues are abortion and evolution??
 
poweRob said:
We need systemic overhal and I don't see that ever happening no matter how much of the public wants it. Policy change is incredibly hard as is, systemic change is 20 times harder.
Click to expand...

Change will be impossible as long as the politicians can bribe the public with their own money.

"A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can always be assured of the support of Paul." - GBS
 
X Factor said:
I remember the GOP was supposedly done for after the 2008 election, then came 2010. I also recall the Dems turning on their own after Scott Brown won. There is nothing new here. I understand why some hopes this signals the death of the GOP, but I wouldn't rent the hearse just yet.
Click to expand...

The difference in the 2010 election, in my opinion, is that the candidates were not running in 2010 on privatizing SS and Medicare as the tea party called on them to do after they gained some political influence in 2010. I predict the GOP will lose the House in 2014 if they stay with that extreme policy position, and this may be a valuable lesson for the GOP's future success.
 
I had actually hoped with the 2010 midterms the Republicans had found their method of solidifying the disparate groups by having a unified message focusing primarily on fiscal and governmental conservatism. It's the portoin of the platform that generally most of the various groups within the base like to some degree and is least objectable to any particular group. This is different from the Defense and Social aspects of the platform that appeal more heavily to some parts of the base but act as a deterrent for other parts of the base when it's focused on.

I do'nt think it's an argument of moderate vs extreme. I think the idiotic "War on Women" meme and comments on rape that some of the candidates made and similar type things were more damaging then the notion of not raising taxes and cutting spending.
 
Rising Sun said:
No doubt there are problems as the GOP continues to find its way, but I think this article overstates its case. If the GOP expects to excel in the 2014 mid-term elections and retake the White House in 2020, they need to regroup and find a common cause.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why we cant have three partys instead of two. Conservative and libertarian Republicans need to leave the party and start backing a third party. It doesnt matter if Democrats win the Presidency if they cant get their way in congress because they have to deal with 2 other partys. At the very least it will force congress to pass legislations which has tri-partisan support.
 
Zyphlin said:
I had actually hoped with the 2010 midterms the Republicans had found their method of solidifying the disparate groups by having a unified message focusing primarily on fiscal and governmental conservatism.
Click to expand...

The problem IMO, was that message was not uniformly applied across the board. There are MANY that wanted social program cuts but did not want to reduce the military spending at all. In fact Romney ran on a campaign that would INCREASE the military budget. When the right talks about fiscal responsibility, but then accepts a bloated defense budget, they looked hypocritical.

Zyphlin said:
I do'nt think it's an argument of moderate vs extreme. I think the idiotic "War on Women" meme and comments on rape that some of the candidates made and similar type things were more damaging then the notion of not raising taxes and cutting spending.
Click to expand...

Too many social conservatives want the limelight in the GOP cirlces and the country is moving from center to left of center in regards to social issues. Of course the right is not simply going to abandon social conservatism, however, when they put it in the mainstream like they did during the Republican primaries, it's not going to sit well with the majority of the country. Social conservatism is not the reason that the GOP lost, but coupled with an abrasive stance on government programs and comments like "47%", the GOP basically alienated many people IMO.
 
Zyphlin said:
I had actually hoped with the 2010 midterms the Republicans had found their method of solidifying the disparate groups by having a unified message focusing primarily on fiscal and governmental conservatism. It's the portoin of the platform that generally most of the various groups within the base like to some degree and is least objectable to any particular group. This is different from the Defense and Social aspects of the platform that appeal more heavily to some parts of the base but act as a deterrent for other parts of the base when it's focused on.

I do'nt think it's an argument of moderate vs extreme. I think the idiotic "War on Women" meme and comments on rape that some of the candidates made and similar type things were more damaging then the notion of not raising taxes and cutting spending.
Click to expand...

Only damaging because the media focuses on things like that instead of actually informing the public or holding democrats accountable. And the voters are idiots so they dont know anything beyond what the media feeds them. If your point is that Republicans have to try harder to live up to the higher standard set by the media on Republicans than Democrats, then youre right. Life isnt fair, and Republicans need to accept that they cant get away with gaffs, or have any benefit of the doubt from the media like democrats can.
 
Rising Sun said:
No doubt there are problems as the GOP continues to find its way, but I think this article overstates its case. If the GOP expects to excel in the 2014 mid-term elections and retake the White House in 2020, they need to regroup and find a common cause.
Click to expand...

They are angry as Geroge 111 was: they believe they have the divine right to rule, and people have dared to disagree.
 
jonny5 said:
Only damaging because the media focuses on things like that instead of actually informing the public or holding democrats accountable. And the voters are idiots so they dont know anything beyond what the media feeds them. If your point is that Republicans have to try harder to live up to the higher standard set by the media on Republicans than Democrats, then youre right. Life isnt fair, and Republicans need to accept that they cant get away with gaffs, or have any benefit of the doubt from the media like democrats can.
Click to expand...

The GOP screwed the GOP.
 
Much like Texas wouldn't be such a bad place if there weren't so many Texans living there, the GOP wouldn't be nearly as obnoxious if it didn't have so many Republicans.

LOL!

Just kiddin' y'all. I am a Texan. Our humor can be somewhat unique.
 
jonny5 said:
Only damaging because the media focuses on things like that instead of actually informing the public or holding democrats accountable. And the voters are idiots so they dont know anything beyond what the media feeds them. If your point is that Republicans have to try harder to live up to the higher standard set by the media on Republicans than Democrats, then youre right. Life isnt fair, and Republicans need to accept that they cant get away with gaffs, or have any benefit of the doubt from the media like democrats can.
Click to expand...

While there are those who feel the Republicans should get their act together the American people decided to vote for more debt, economic lethargy, an uncertain foreign policy and class warfare.

I don't feel this is the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. It is the present generation of the American people who are to blame for this mess, and their reelection of someone like Barrack Obama only underscores that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom