• 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 GOP Civil War: Choose a side.

Which side of the GOP will you support?

  • Total voters
    45
ChezC3

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
McCain essentially told the American people today on the Senate floor that if you supported Rand Paul's fillibuster, you were an "impressionable kid".

I don't know but being closer to 40 than 30 much less being an "impressionable kid", I take offense to that comment.


So in the GOP's Civil War which side are you on?
 
I respect McCain a lot. On this issue, he is wrong. Which is fine. I often disagree with people I respect alot.
 
Yea McCain's wrong all right. But civil war ?

Sounds like a left wing narrative in the making.
 
ChezC3 said:
McCain essentially told the American people today on the Senate floor that if you supported Rand Paul's fillibuster, you were an "impressionable kid".

I don't know but being closer to 40 than 30 much less being an "impressionable kid", I take offense to that comment.


So in the GOP's Civil War which side are you on?
Click to expand...

I'm with the young pups!

McCain needs to go home and be quiet.

IMO the sooner the old guard goes away-both sides-the better

My dream would be for a viable 3rd party to come along,

but I won't hold my breath waiting.:twocents:
 
Establishment all the way on most matters. In regard to this, Paul simply out-maneuvered most folks politically. I was impressed when I heard about it. Since many do not stand up and talk to hold up legislation, I thought it was cunning of him to do so. Its novelty is a great asset to Paul, gives not only his stance a play, a larger debate on drones, but also pivots Paul to the front of political discourse.
 
I thought he was quitting?
 
Fenton said:
Yea McCain's wrong all right. But civil war ?

Sounds like a left wing narrative in the making.
Click to expand...


The GOP does have a lot to learn about creating a narrative...
 
the filibuster resulted in exposure, and a new response that can be considered a policy statement :

Eric Holder said:
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
Click to expand...

now i suppose we could spend some time debating what "engaged in combat" means, but i'm reasonably convinced that there aren't any plans to kill me by drone for complaining about **** on the internet, or for marching around with a sign, although i find signs tacky, and i abhor bumper stickers.

Paul and i don't agree on a lot, but the old timey talking filibuster was a definite win. also, back in the day when i deceived myself into thinking i was a libertarian, i used to vote for his dad in every fox news poll just so i could help to piss off Hannity. it was always worth it. lol
 
ChezC3 said:
McCain essentially told the American people today on the Senate floor that if you supported Rand Paul's fillibuster, you were an "impressionable kid".

I don't know but being closer to 40 than 30 much less being an "impressionable kid", I take offense to that comment.


So in the GOP's Civil War which side are you on?
Click to expand...

Is it possible to side with the Libertarians and not the TEA Party?
 
penn1954 said:
I'm with the young pups!

McCain needs to go home and be quiet.

IMO the sooner the old guard goes away-both sides-the better

My dream would be for a viable 3rd party to come along,

but I won't hold my breath waiting.:twocents:
Click to expand...

I voted in 08 (forever to my shame) for Obama expressly because I was voting against McCain.

Since then, whenever there has been a 3rd party choice, (Green or Libertarian) that is the candidate who got my vote.


Unfortunately, unless some major developments take place, infiltration of the 2 major parties is the only way to get our voices heard.
 
cpwill said:
I respect McCain a lot. On this issue, he is wrong. Which is fine. I often disagree with people I respect alot.
Click to expand...



I have respect for McCain for his service to his country and for his obvious courage as a POW.

I don't like his brand of politics and he is a constant pain in the side of the Republicans.
 
ChezC3 said:
McCain essentially told the American people today on the Senate floor that if you supported Rand Paul's fillibuster, you were an "impressionable kid".

I don't know but being closer to 40 than 30 much less being an "impressionable kid", I take offense to that comment.


So in the GOP's Civil War which side are you on?
Click to expand...

I'm a liberal. All I can say is I am enjoying watching the right wing come apart at the seams.
 
ChezC3 said:
I voted in 08 (forever to my shame) for Obama expressly because I was voting against McCain.

Since then, whenever there has been a 3rd party choice, (Green or Libertarian) that is the candidate who got my vote.


Unfortunately, unless some major developments take place, infiltration of the 2 major parties is the only way to get our voices heard.
Click to expand...

Who'd you vote for in 2012?
 
Fenton said:
Yea McCain's wrong all right. But civil war ?

Sounds like a left wing narrative in the making.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's pretty much true.

This past year I was the treasurer for one of my state Senators campaign. There were a couple of major donors who were Republican locks that ended up giving to the Democrat challenger. It so happens that both of these guys were McCain cronies. We also has a McCain supported candidate in another campaign who provided strategic support to the Democrat running against another candidate in another race. There is no question whatsoever that the AZGOP has not only taken a side in this "civil war" but has actively provided support for their cause.

The RINO's primary goal is to maintain a political aristocracy and, like the Democrats, believe that expansive government control over individuals is necessary to maintain that aristocracy. They're right but that isn't exactly what the purpose of government in America is supposed to be.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Thank God. The TEA Party irks me to no end. Libertarians on the other hand... I tend to side with.
Click to expand...

"Tea parties" were originally constitutionalist, fiscal-conservative gatherings dominated by libertarians.

At least that's how it was in Boston and in Seattle. Two places I am most familiar with. (The first-ever "tea party" was held here, in the Emerald City, on Feb 16, 2009. Keli Carender was the organizer).

The central premise of the tea parties (and the prime source of their relative success) was: we, conservatives, libertarians and moderates now (having been shaked out of complacency by the Crisis) come together to promote candidates who would do better than the alternatives, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, pro-free-market policies and individual rights. And - we declare truce on the fronts of our disagreements ("social issues", immigration, etc).

Yes, from the beginning it was a populist movement (instantly dumbed-down from its "Ron Paul Revoluton" predecessor). But: It did produce Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Nikki Haley, Mike Lee, et al. They are the best the GOP has to offer. This is a fairly faint praise, but yes - "better" - much better -than "the alternatives". From my, moderate-libertarian point of view.

Of course, nothing fails like success. When it became clear that "tea-party-ism" means more votes and better publicity, a whole bunch of perfectly statist demagogues jumped on the bandwagon. The "bachmannisation" is a real thing, and it is not pretty. But I think the core of the tea-party movement is still healthy - as healthy as anything populist can be in principle.
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
McCain essentially told the American people today on the Senate floor that if you supported Rand Paul's fillibuster, you were an "impressionable kid".

I don't know but being closer to 40 than 30 much less being an "impressionable kid", I take offense to that comment.


So in the GOP's Civil War which side are you on?
Click to expand...

I might send contributions to both sides.
 
The GOP unfortunately is mostly go along and get along but above all get reelected country club elites. Most would be content to play second fiddle to the democrats as long as they get to keep their cushy jobs. The old guys need to be swept out of the way to make room for the new young bloods that have ideas and energy and want this country to return to the Reagan era America. These old men that walk around like they have sticks up their butts on their way from one 3 martini meal to another make me want to get the death panels up and running.
 
Whipsnade said:
I might send contributions to both sides.
Click to expand...

I'm in the process of sending a donation to every Senator who took part in yesterday's activities that backed Sen. Paul.

Just getting all the participants names and the appropriate websites.
 
Cyrylek said:
"Tea parties" were originally constitutionalist, fiscal-conservative gatherings dominated by libertarians.

At least that's how it was in Boston and in Seattle. Two places I am most familiar with. (The first-ever "tea party" was held here, in the Emerald City, on Feb 16, 2009. Keli Carender was the organizer).

The central premise of the tea parties (and the prime source of their relative success) was: we, conservatives, libertarians and moderates now (having been shaked out of complacency by the Crisis) come together to promote candidates who would do better than the alternatives, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, pro-free-market policies and individual rights. And - we declare truce on the fronts of our disagreements ("social issues", immigration, etc).

Yes, from the beginning it was a populist movement (instantly dumbed-down from its "Ron Paul Revoluton" predecessor). But: It did produce Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Nikki Haley, Mike Lee, et al. They are the best the GOP has to offer. This is a fairly faint praise, but yes - "better" - much better -than "the alternatives". From my, moderate-libertarian point of view.

Of course, nothing fails like success. When it became clear that "tea-party-ism" means more votes and better publicity, a whole bunch of perfectly statist demagogues jumped on the bandwagon. The "bachmannisation" is a real thing, and it is not pretty. But I think the core of the tea-party movement is still healthy - as healthy as anything populist can be in principle.
Click to expand...

When I first began reading this I began loading my gun to shoot myself. But then I thought about it, you're absolutely right. The basis of the TEA Party is not what is seen on television. Those TEA Partiers that tend to be heard the most are the ones that were picked up with Bachmann.

What is really needed is a bi-partisan party to be made. Just a moderate party, where it's okay to favor gay marriage and spending cuts. That's what we need. That's what the Libertarian, or maybe even the TEA, party needs to be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom