• 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 Republican civil war is just getting started

Cyrylek said:
You have thousands of tea party groups, thousands of local, state and federal campaigns. Whenever a "celebrity" like Bachmann or Palin is invited to speak (which does not mean, by the way, that their views are entirely shared by the hosts), it makes news. Whenever they are not, it doesn't - because - well, nothing 'newsworthy' has happened. 'A bunch of area geeks discuss federal fiscal issues", as The Onion would quip. What you see is a reflection on how the media works, not on the tea parties in general.
Click to expand...

I am so happy to see you use quotations here...

But yes, the media uses these caricatures to cast ill favored light on what would otherwise be considered a gathering of geeks (your words not mine, the undertones of snobbery never suited my palate...;)) who have just as much chance affecting things by pounding sand as they do listening to their media darlings...
 
Samhain said:
Sure thing. Here it is pegged in 1983 dollars

83-93 -- 1.7 trillion
93-03 -- 600 billion
03-13 -- 3.5 trillion (2.6 trillion since 2008)

Geez, that makes it look even worse. I guess you should haven't complained about a non adjusted value.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

First you said:

83-93 -- 3 trillion (3.3 time less)
93-03 -- 2.8 trillion (3.5 times less)
03-13 -- 10 trillion


Then I said adjust for inflation and you respond with;

83-93 -- 1.7 trillion (2 times less)
93-03 -- 600 billion <---no idea how you get this number. If you used 1983 dollars how would this number shrink to less than 1/2 of the 83-93 number when it was almost the same before the calculation?
03-13 -- 3.5 trillion

How are these numbers worse?

So when adjusting for inflation, comparing the years 83-93 to 03-13 we see a difference of 1.3 times less. How is that hurt my argument?

Frankly I'm a little confused with what you did. In 1983 dollars $3T you quoted would be $3T, $10T would be $7.4T.

I never claimed that adjusting for inflation would make everything equal, it's not as you portrayed it.

Now lets look as a percentage of GDP....

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg


Hmmmm....Looks like Reagan and Bush's did the most damage, by far....

Look at the debt to GDP ratio when Reagan came in, about 35%, and look at it when bush left, just shy of 70%. A 35% increase. Under Obama about a 10% increase....hmmmmm

But that doesn't fit your narrative so I'll brace myself for another witty retort...
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Actually, you are wrong.

The biggest effect the Tea Party had on the government was the 2010 election. Obama wasn't affected, but many Democrat AND Republican lawmakers were.
Click to expand...

You are right about the election of Teaparty financed candidates. They are different than others because they answer to donors that don't care about America only their own interests. What is also new is the big money to finance primary challengers of other Republicans which is how they keep the rest of the House GOP in line.
 
apdst said:
A [Liberal Democrat; the most Left leaning president in history.
Click to expand...

If you think Obama is the "most left leaning President in History", you better look up Abe Lincoln first... ;)
 
Republicans continue to rue the day Nixon was POTUS..
Not because of Watergate, but because of his dozens of domestic contributions ..
 
iguanaman said:
You are right about the election of Teaparty financed candidates. They are different than others because they answer to donors that don't care about America only their own interests. What is also new is the big money to finance primary challengers of other Republicans which is how they keep the rest of the House GOP in line.
Click to expand...

When you do your taxes this year, how about throwing in an extra 10 or 15% for the government?
 
Zyphlin said:
Strangely enough, I'm okay with it. This has been needed since 2008 and the past few election cycles have just been working up to it.

The political landscape has massively changed in the near two decades since 1994 compared to the five decades prior to it. The Republican Party is no longer firmly situated into the role of the neigh permanent minority party in power. This is inevitably going to create a change within the mindset and mentality of the base and those within the party infastructure.

I'm honestly unsure which way this battle goes as it continues, and I don't think it's going to end this election cycle or next, but I think ultimately it's needed within the Republican party. At this point there is a significant divide in terms of the mentality, purpose, and practice within the party that needs to be addressed in some fashion to have a unified message and to allow a "norm" to be established with some acceptable outliers as opposed to two distinct and significant camps.

It'll likely cause Republicans some issues over the next election, and it will make the 2016 presidential election season extremely interesting. I think it'll be three election cycles....so 2018...before we truly have a good view of how this battle ends up turning out.
Click to expand...

I also welcome it and i think it will be a good move and what they need.

IMO its simple, go back to the basics.
Drop all the social issues out of the campaign platform they are a complete waste
next focus on strong military, strong economy, strong education

and most importantly focus on being FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE

BUT

drop all the rhetoric that is counter productive
"free loaders"
"minorities"
"welfare moms"
"government teet"

etc etc etc

all those words hurt the argument more than they help it, and it makes many people offended because the facts are not everybody on some type of assistance is a freeloader, lazy or a minority etc etc

focus on the CORRUPTION, the ABUSE, focus on the poor CHECKS and BALANCES, focus on the poor REGULATIONS of the programs, NOT on who the programs provide for or who is ABUSING the system

because if that is fixed then who is abusing the system gets fixed also, it fixes itself without putting a blanket label on people that many simply dont like.

I think this is the way to go and the way to gain HONEST support and weed out the fringe or at least make them easier to identify for people that blatantly cant see them or dishonestly lump them all together.

just my two cents
 
csbrown28 said:
Seriously?
< snip >
Now lets look as a percentage of GDP....

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg


Hmmmm....Looks like Reagan and Bush's did the most damage, by far....

Look at the debt to GDP ratio when Reagan came in, about 35%, and look at it when bush left, just shy of 70%. A 35% increase. Under Obama about a 10% increase....hmmmmm

But that doesn't fit your narrative so I'll brace myself for another witty retort...
Click to expand...
Quick [obvious] question: what is better, a low debt / GDP ratio or a high debt / GDP ratio?
 
EdwinWillers said:
Quick [obvious] question: what is better, a low debt / GDP ratio or a high debt / GDP ratio?
Click to expand...

I see where this is going, so why don't you address the point.....No one has done more to raise the debt to GDP ratio, than Reagan and the Bush's. Prior to Obama, who was dealt absolute crap and who has contributed 10% to the debt to GDP ratio compared to an increase of 70% between Reagan and the Bush's. :confused:
 
iguanaman said:
You are right about the election of Teaparty financed candidates. They are different than others because they answer to donors that don't care about America only their own interests. What is also new is the big money to finance primary challengers of other Republicans which is how they keep the rest of the House GOP in line.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

So what? Do you see that as a bad thing? To me, if the Tea Party is able to put pressure on Congress to reduce government spending, more power to them.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

So what? Do you see that as a bad thing? To me, if the Tea Party is able to put pressure on Congress to reduce government spending, more power to them.
Click to expand...

So you like having the National Parks closed? I thought so. The only thing the Tea's are pressuring is the economy. The billions in lost economic activity is what they were after. Conservatives hate healthy growing economies. It weakens their position.
 
iguanaman said:
So you like having the National Parks closed? I thought so. The only thing the Tea's are pressuring is the economy. The billions in lost economic activity is what they were after. Conservatives hate healthy growing economies. It weakens their position.
Click to expand...

Healthy, growing economies are a good thing...but the national parks are not going to tank the economy. Government deficit spending, however, will, as we've seen already in the last 5 years.
 
Hatuey said:
The Republican civil war is just getting started



As a Democrat:

blackguy.gif
h7E77A41C
this-is-gonna-be-good.gif
tumblr_lmyvp2aUwt1qcawqao1_400.gif
Group-LOL.gif
Click to expand...

The Tea Party having their own candidates, Aiken and Mourdock lost Missouri and Indiana to the Democrats last year. Lugar and Steelman, more moderate would have won easily. Then let us not forget Angle and o'Donnell in 2010. Senator Reid would have lost to a candidate that could have attracted more independent voters. Challenging McConnell for the right to take on Grimes, KY Sec of State, a democrat who has won state wide there with a tea party candidate would just give KY to the Dems. A Broun or Gingrey in Georgia would probably lead to Michelle Nunn winning Chambliss's seat for the Dems.

In the house, getting independent votes is not as important in districts as it is statewide. The Republicans better get their little civil war over in a hurry or they will wake up the day after next years election with the whole government in Democratic hands and the possibility of a filibuster proof senate in the Dems favor.
 
Republican money bundlers are beginning to back away from TEA-members and candidates, with FOUR RINO-primaries already..
Mycroft said:
LOL!!So what? Do you see that as a bad thing?
Click to expand...
REpubs are in a bad position by continuing to root for ACA to fail..
To me, if the Tea Party is able to put pressure on Congress to reduce government spending, more power to them.
Click to expand...
The Sen. Coburn plan of 2011, grand bargain, would have us half way home to a balanced budget..
Too bad for Boehner..That was his and our first loss with this caucus .
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
If you think Obama is the "most left leaning President in History", you better look up Abe Lincoln first... ;)
Click to expand...

If you think Lincoln was a Libbo, you need to read a book.
 
It's good to have a growing economy in 2013 compared to the end of 2008..
Republicans CRUZ, PALIN, LEE, KING-IA, KLAYMAN and confederate flags will continue to use our Veterans..
We've lost 1,000,000 govt. jobs..
With a sensible "grand-bargain" plan like Coburn's, we'd be back to Reagan defict #s
 
Michael66 said:
It may just be a situation in which the tea baggers have to win in order to bring down your country to the level at which the people will start to fight for their rights and a fair share. If that's the case then there is a great deal of suffering to be endured by the ordinary American before your country wises up.

In reality, I think the tea bagger agenda will be completely defused when Obama's term is over and the racist element no longer exists. The baggers will no longer have the motivation that keeps them hating.
Click to expand...

I don't believe many understand what the Tea Party's principals and ideology actually consist of given our MSM progressive media TELLING -- or better yet -- talking at their viewers in an attempt to brainwash them with progressive big government propaganda.

In the way libertarian and the Party is portrayed in the internet, MSM and even the White House cabinet - is nothing short of propaganda....

Hell, now that some "life long democrats" have seen their insurance premiums under Obamacare rise by as much as 50-100% (which republicans depicted since the very begining when the idea was debated back in 9-10 -- now they're all of a sudden changing their viewpoint about Obama "Iesus"....

Funny how when progressive policies an other legislation trickle down to you - all of a sudden you go bat**** insane
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
The Tea Party having their own candidates, Aiken and Mourdock lost Missouri and Indiana to the Democrats last year. Lugar and Steelman, more moderate would have won easily. Then let us not forget Angle and o'Donnell in 2010. Senator Reid would have lost to a candidate that could have attracted more independent voters. Challenging McConnell for the right to take on Grimes, KY Sec of State, a democrat who has won state wide there with a tea party candidate would just give KY to the Dems. A Broun or Gingrey in Georgia would probably lead to Michelle Nunn winning Chambliss's seat for the Dems.

In the house, getting independent votes is not as important in districts as it is statewide. The Republicans better get their little civil war over in a hurry or they will wake up the day after next years election with the whole government in Democratic hands and the possibility of a filibuster proof senate in the Dems favor.
Click to expand...

Reid's reelection was a particularly egregious failure of the Tea Party and GOP in general. Nobody likes Harry Reid. Of all the seats to take, that was probably one of the easiest I can remember in my adult life. And they failed. All the GOP had to do was run a bog standard Boring McBoringface Republican and it would have been a landslide. They could even have been pretty far into the conservative side of the spectrum and had that seat in hand from day one.

Instead, the GOP primary came up with a person who was literally a conspiracy nut. I think that woman might have been half ****ing senile. When your candidate proclaims that upon losing an election, their side can just resort to ****ing shooting the victors, you should rethink your support for this party. Oh, excuse me, "second amendment remedies."

The worst part is? A lot of Republicans convinced themselves that 2010 was the norm, rather than an outlier. A lot of them think that the losses in 2012 were because they were running people who weren't conservative enough. If they keep this mindset in 2014, they're going to be greatly disappointed.
 
iguanaman said:
So you like having the National Parks closed? I thought so. The only thing the Tea's are pressuring is the economy. The billions in lost economic activity is what they were after. Conservatives hate healthy growing economies. It weakens their position.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the economy is going through a golden age under Obama.

Healthy, growing economies mean fewer people getting government handouts...perfect scenario for the Libbos.
 
Deuce said:
Reid's reelection was a particularly egregious failure of the Tea Party and GOP in general. Nobody likes Harry Reid. Of all the seats to take, that was probably one of the easiest I can remember in my adult life. And they failed. All the GOP had to do was run a bog standard Boring McBoringface Republican and it would have been a landslide. They could even have been pretty far into the conservative side of the spectrum and had that seat in hand from day one.

Instead, the GOP primary came up with a person who was literally a conspiracy nut. I think that woman might have been half ****ing senile. When your candidate proclaims that upon losing an election, their side can just resort to ****ing shooting the victors, you should rethink your support for this party. Oh, excuse me, "second amendment remedies."

The worst part is? A lot of Republicans convinced themselves that 2010 was the norm, rather than an outlier. A lot of them think that the losses in 2012 were because they were running people who weren't conservative enough. If they keep this mindset in 2014, they're going to be greatly disappointed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I always said 2010 was no mandate, it was the voters getting peeved at the Democrats because they basically told those people who elected them to stuff it where the sun don't shine. 2010 didn't happen because the voters liked the republican party more, it happened because they disliked the Republicans less than the Democrats. They were mad at the Democrats for doing the opposite of what their constituents wanted them to.

I look at 2012 as a status quo election, an election that the Republicans could have won but for the choice of bad candidate like your Angle I think her name was. The people were not so peeved at one party as to throw them out, hence the GOP retained control of the house and the Democrats the senate and the presidency.

2014 had all the earmarks of another 2010 up and until 1 Oct. Not anymore and 2014 looks more akin to 2012.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, the economy is going through a golden age under Obama.

Healthy, growing economies mean fewer people getting government handouts...perfect scenario for the Libbos.
Click to expand...

The GOP has hitched their entire party to the idea that Obamacare is going to destroy our civilization. When if fails to do so, you think that will be good for the Republicans? :lamo
 
Hatuey said:
The problem is the Tea Party movement was never about that. It was a direct reaction to Obama's election. They had no problem with growing debt for 30 years. They suddenly have a problem with it when Obama gets elected.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse RINO's and Pseudo-Republicans with Tea Party or the ever-growing libertarian movement...
 
So, by the logic of some, once Hillary is elected in 2016 the Tea Partiers will all pack up their tents and return home since she isn't African-American?

Hmm, we'll see about that.
 
a civil war in the GOP you say?... well good....it's a healthy thing.... not a damn thing wrong with it whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom