• 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!

For Republicans

How do you feel about the Party?

  • I am over 40, and feel I no longer fit in.

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • I am under 40, and It's a great fit.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • I expect the party to become dominant again.

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • I am worried about the next few election cycles.

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • Who cares...Obama is Kenyan.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • I am not republian, but watnyed to mess with your poll.

    Votes: 12 44.4%
  • Total voters
    27
Cephus said:
It was all part of the same thing, all of those things came out of the hard-core religious Southern former-Democrat scene. Lots of fundamentalists abandoned the Democrats over issues like abortion and civil rights and were ripe for the picking by the Republicans who just wanted votes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, come to think of it. They, the Southern Fundamentalist basically switch parties in mass after Roe v. Wade. Those organizations I mention sprung up because of the abortion ruling. Yep, that and civil rights, now gay marriage has entered the mix. But unlike the 70's and 80's when the swing gave the Republicans a huge advantage, now the religious right has begun to hurt them with non-religious or should I say non-fundamentalist voters. I really never thought of it in those terms.
 
Cephus said:
I don't think it's just corporate dollars though, all of the PACs are just as bad. I think we need to remove the monetary component from campaigning, make it illegal for anyone, businesses or individuals alike, to donate a single dime to any political campaign.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the PACs are essentially corporate money. Sure individual citizens will donate, but I'd guarantee that the overwhelming majority of the cash invested in those things is corporate.

However, I believe as you've said, that we should remove the monetary component for campaigning. I don't think politicians should be advertised similar to a brand new television or dish washer.

I just think that it's going to be very difficult to do so, you'd have to make a lot of laws that I don't necessarily agree with.

In all honesty, it'd be best if people just started to wake up and do a little bit of research on their own, rather than force the country to make new laws to fix the broken system. It's really the constituents that are broken, allowing them selves to be led like sheep each election cycle.



Cephus said:
But I don't think that's the whole problem. The problem is that we've got agendas vying for control, not people trying to represent the will and wishes of the people. Most politicians couldn't care less what the people want, they're just trying to feather their own nests and get re-elected so they can keep on the power and money train for another term. Until we change that, nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that the money isn't the whole problem, just a major component of the problem.

The way I see it, the (corporate)corruption we've got going on at higher levels of government is really the end result of a completely uninhibited free market. It moves in cycles and basically finds the highest level that the populace will tolerate before restricting itself back to normal.

While I think there are concrete things that could be done to right the system, I don't know that I definitely agree with many of them (on principle). Sometimes I think it is best to just watch things run their course.
 
Cephus said:
And then Congress would override anything they do and stonewall them throughout their administration. They'd leave office without accomplishing a damn thing.
Click to expand...

To some extent this is true, but for someone to get elected to the office of President they must have some electorate clout. Also, when it comes to congressional authority there are some limits of Congressional power.

It's all a system of checks-and-balances, but there are definitely some areas where the executive can act independently, likewise there are some areas where the legislature can act independently.

Foreign policy, is one area of executive power where the legislature can't only stop things once they hit the war declaring level.
 
I'm under 40 and it's a moderately good fit. I like the direction it's heading in some regards and dislike the other. I think it it became more governmental and fiscally focused on a national level, and moved their social focus to more of a state level, then I'd be happier.
 
Paleocon said:
The party is becoming degenerate. A larger and less extreme version of the libertarian party.
Click to expand...

:lamo The Republican Party is about as libertarian as Obama's eyebrow. Seriously.
 
The GOP needs to accept our role as a regional player and a national opposition party. Stick with principle even if it means never winning the White House again. Look for opportunities to agree with democrats where possible in order to get some issues advanced instead of opposing our own policies just to make their governance as difficult as possible. Become known as the party of doing the right thing even if it doesn't help us on election day. Purging voter roles, cutting early voting on the days democrats happen to vote more, reducing voting hours in minority neighborhoods while in the same states extending them in suburban areas all make republicans look so power hungry they've resorted to unethical behavior.
 
I wanted to mess with your poll, and then I saw the option that said I wanted to mess with your poll, so I chose that option. This makes me happy.
 
Perotista said:
Yeah, come to think of it. They, the Southern Fundamentalist basically switch parties in mass after Roe v. Wade. Those organizations I mention sprung up because of the abortion ruling. Yep, that and civil rights, now gay marriage has entered the mix. But unlike the 70's and 80's when the swing gave the Republicans a huge advantage, now the religious right has begun to hurt them with non-religious or should I say non-fundamentalist voters. I really never thought of it in those terms.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you, the religious aren't doing the Republicans any favors today, but we're still left, not with a battle between the conservatives and the liberals, but between the far-right hyper-religious liberals and the far-left hyper-social-justice liberals. Conservatives are left out in the cold.
 
Cephus said:
Oh, I agree with you, the religious aren't doing the Republicans any favors today, but we're still left, not with a battle between the conservatives and the liberals, but between the far-right hyper-religious liberals and the far-left hyper-social-justice liberals. Conservatives are left out in the cold.
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't the foggiest idea of what a conservative is.
 
I agree with them in principle on certain issues (not in action) but they lost me completely with the social conservatism.
 
Cephus said:
Oh, I agree with you, the religious aren't doing the Republicans any favors today, but we're still left, not with a battle between the conservatives and the liberals, but between the far-right hyper-religious liberals and the far-left hyper-social-justice liberals. Conservatives are left out in the cold.
Click to expand...

I would say true conservatives are that want to keep government out of the social arena. It does seem religious conservatives if the term conservative really applies to them want to utilize government to enforce their moral beliefs on others. That in my opinion is more statist and as you stated, more a liberal philosophy to use the force of government to correct social wrongs as they see it.
 
Perotista said:
I would say true conservatives are that want to keep government out of the social arena. It does seem religious conservatives if the term conservative really applies to them want to utilize government to enforce their moral beliefs on others. That in my opinion is more statist and as you stated, more a liberal philosophy to use the force of government to correct social wrongs as they see it.
Click to expand...

Social issues belong in the realm of society, not government. Society changes constantly and as it does, the social position of society does as well. Conservatism isn't about pushing a particular social agenda on society, in fact, that's what the liberals do, they want to force everyone into a particular mold, whereas conservatives are about leaving people alone to do what they want, within a particular range of norms. Instead of the people telling the government, through their elected representatives, what they want to be permissible, the GOP, like the Democrats, want to force a particular political ideology on the people. It isn't bottom up, it's top down.
 
Cephus said:
Social issues belong in the realm of society, not government. Society changes constantly and as it does, the social position of society does as well. Conservatism isn't about pushing a particular social agenda on society, in fact, that's what the liberals do, they want to force everyone into a particular mold, whereas conservatives are about leaving people alone to do what they want, within a particular range of norms. Instead of the people telling the government, through their elected representatives, what they want to be permissible, the GOP, like the Democrats, want to force a particular political ideology on the people. It isn't bottom up, it's top down.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I couldn't say it better myself. Both parties have their political agenda and you are correct, both parties try to force their agenda down the American people's throats. I am pretty much a laissez faire type of guy. I really do not care what someone thinks, does, acts, etc. as long as he isn't harming someone else.
 
Perotista said:
Exactly, I couldn't say it better myself. Both parties have their political agenda and you are correct, both parties try to force their agenda down the American people's throats. I am pretty much a laissez faire type of guy. I really do not care what someone thinks, does, acts, etc. as long as he isn't harming someone else.
Click to expand...

It's not just both parties, it's all parties. The Libertarians have an agenda. The Constitutional Party has an agenda. The Communists have an agenda. We don't have a government where people with different viewpoints join together to solve the problems facing the nation, it's all about different groups fighting for their way and only their way and how to best screw over all the other parties and people who don't fall lockstep into their camp. It's not about compromise and representing the people, it's about grabbing as much power for your side as you can.
 
Perotista said:
I would say true conservatives are that want to keep government out of the social arena. It does seem religious conservatives if the term conservative really applies to them want to utilize government to enforce their moral beliefs on others. That in my opinion is more statist and as you stated, more a liberal philosophy to use the force of government to correct social wrongs as they see it.
Click to expand...

You realize that your understanding of the word conservative is contrary to how it's historically understood, and is thus in contradiction to the very definition of conservatism, right?
 
Cephus said:
It's not just both parties, it's all parties. The Libertarians have an agenda. The Constitutional Party has an agenda. The Communists have an agenda. We don't have a government where people with different viewpoints join together to solve the problems facing the nation, it's all about different groups fighting for their way and only their way and how to best screw over all the other parties and people who don't fall lockstep into their camp. It's not about compromise and representing the people, it's about grabbing as much power for your side as you can.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Our founding fathers and the framers warned us about political parties, they called them factions in their day. They were afraid once political parties came into being, those political parties would put the need of the party before the need of the nation. It would be loyalty to party and not loyalty to country. For the good of the party and not the people. Yep.
 
Paleocon said:
You realize that your understanding of the word conservative is contrary to how it's historically understood, and is thus in contradiction to the very definition of conservatism, right?
Click to expand...

Understood from your perspective. But not always. I consider myself a Goldwater Conservative, pretty much along the lines of a traditional conservative. The last true traditional conservative president this nation had was Calvin Coolidge. The three tenets of tradition conservatism is 1. Avoiding foreign entanglements, some would call this isolationism. I call it keeping our nose out of other countries business. Senator Robert Taft of Ohio was the last well known Republican to vie for the 1952 presidential nomination that believed in this. If you remember it was the Republicans who kept us out of the League of nations that Wilson wanted us to join and Truman who got us into the United Nations. We do not need to be the policeman of the world.
2. Fiscal Responsibility - basically a balanced budget, not spending more than one takes in. If there is to be a deficit, one either rasies taxes, cuts spending or both. This mantra of only cutting spending kind of flies in the face of fiscal responsibility.

3. Keeping government out of a Citzens private business and lives. Small government. Minimum government regulations and mandates on businesses, only those that are required and staying out of the social arena. Basically let any individual lead the life they want as long as they are not harming others.

This is/was traditional conservatism. Eisenhower lead the Republican Party away from tenet number one. Reagan from tenet number 2 and the religious right away from tenet number 3. Abet most Republicans today still talk about less regulations and mandates, but they seem to want to regulate an individual social life via government fiat.

Now this is the way I see it.
 
Perotista said:
Understood from your perspective. But not always. I consider myself a Goldwater Conservative, pretty much along the lines of a traditional conservative. The last true traditional conservative president this nation had was Calvin Coolidge. The three tenets of tradition conservatism is 1. Avoiding foreign entanglements, some would call this isolationism. I call it keeping our nose out of other countries business. Senator Robert Taft of Ohio was the last well known Republican to vie for the 1952 presidential nomination that believed in this. If you remember it was the Republicans who kept us out of the League of nations that Wilson wanted us to join and Truman who got us into the United Nations. We do not need to be the policeman of the world.
2. Fiscal Responsibility - basically a balanced budget, not spending more than one takes in. If there is to be a deficit, one either rasies taxes, cuts spending or both. This mantra of only cutting spending kind of flies in the face of fiscal responsibility.

3. Keeping government out of a Citzens private business and lives. Small government. Minimum government regulations and mandates on businesses, only those that are required and staying out of the social arena. Basically let any individual lead the life they want as long as they are not harming others.

This is/was traditional conservatism. Eisenhower lead the Republican Party away from tenet number one. Reagan from tenet number 2 and the religious right away from tenet number 3. Abet most Republicans today still talk about less regulations and mandates, but they seem to want to regulate an individual social life via government fiat.

Now this is the way I see it.
Click to expand...

Well that's not traditional conservatism, that's modern conservatism. Traditional conservatism is the people who sat on the right of the National Assembly in revolutionary France, they certainly wouldn't have believed that the government should stay out of social issues.
 
Paleocon said:
Well that's not traditional conservatism, that's modern conservatism. Traditional conservatism is the people who sat on the right of the National Assembly in revolutionary France, they certainly wouldn't have believed that the government should stay out of social issues.
Click to expand...

It was here too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom