Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Republicans need to do one thing, and one thing only....shut the hell up about the social issues, and hit hard on the fiscal.

They've done that with some success, thing is, once they get in office, fiscal takes a back seat, and social issues become their main focus.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

They've done that with some success, thing is, once they get in office, fiscal takes a back seat, and social issues become their main focus.

I think my big beef with social conservatives is they come across like hypocrites. Generally these are the people who campaign on "freedoms and liberties" on one hand throwing out those terms left and right, then in the next breath they want to stop gay marriage or abortions. I think the hypocrisy bugs me more then then their actual stance on the issue. You don't like gay marriage or abortion, fine state your case why you against them but don't give me any crap you are all about freedoms and liberties and somehow you on a higher moral ground then your opponent who wants to take them away.

It's sort of the same deal of people acting like fiscal conservatives, then in the next breath it's like oh no we need to increase the defense budget. It's a basic case it's hard taking anybody seriously when they say a bunch of buzzwords but their actual beliefs don't gel with it.

[Thundercrack85]

Well, if you consider abortion to be murder, like most of them do, then, obviously it's not going to fall under freedom and liberties.

As for gay marriage... you're going to have a hard time winning over a bunch of sexually repressed puritans on that one.

There are some fundamental disagreements on what is "good" in the country. Or liberties, for that matter.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Well, if you consider abortion to be murder, like most of them do, then, obviously it's not going to fall under freedom and liberties.

As for gay marriage... you're going to have a hard time winning over a bunch of sexually repressed puritans on that one.

There are some fundamental disagreements on what is "good" in the country. Or liberties, for that matter.

fair enough on abortion, but don't tell me you are all about freedoms and liberties when you want to take away/not give peoples freedoms and liberties in issues that don't gel with your agenda(gay marriage, weed, etc)

The worst part is they shove terms like that in peoples faces and it's like they either don't understand how many of their stances is the exact opposite of what they preach or believe the public is to stupid to notice the hypocrisy

Basically I think it would be much easier to take them seriously as a candidate if they just stated their view on things without using buzzwords that completely contradict their views. Simple fact is while I am pro gay marriage and abortion, those in all reality aren't going to be my main reason for voting. Somebody being a complete hypocrite about his views is more likely to turn me off then actually holding views that are against what I believe in that regard, basically it's more a character issue then about the actual issues for me

[Kelly]

As far as abortion, they have got to figure out that this group of judges, and very possibly not even a very conservative group of judges is going to overturn Roe v Wade, it just isn't going to happen. ... and unless the left starts talking about pushing "partial birth" and 3rd trimester abortions they need to be happy with what they have and shut up.

As far as Gay Rights...it is actually pretty simple. They don't have to vote for it, they simply have to stay quiet and not pressure the hell out of those that very well could vote for it. Those that are moderate, could very well be re-elected even after a yes vote, and they would be there to fight with them for another day....but instead they get pissed off, throw them under the bus and withhold funding.....that is just stupid. Let them vote their conscious, others do the same and just shut up. BUT, what will happen is you will have a Rights Bill written, and so much **** will be thrown into it, not even the most moderate could vote for it...that is how it always is....

Write the damn bill, and put it up for an up or down vote. That is finally what they did with the Women's Suffrage legislation, and it went through...BARELY, but it went through. I think the same would happen with a Gay Rights Bill.

[SV Fan]

I at least get them fighting against abortion, but gay marriage hurts nobody. I think where they loss me on abortion is not that they are against it but they just seem to want a policy to outlaw it then stick your head in the stand and act like it's not a problem. If you basically want to get rid of abortion come up with some legislation to help prevent lower class females from getting pregnant in the first place(which in general they seem to be against as well(ie Planned Parenthood funding))

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I at least get them fighting against abortion, but gay marriage hurts nobody. I think where they loss me on abortion is not that they are against it but they just seem to want a policy to outlaw it then stick your head in the stand and act like it's not a problem. If you basically want to get rid of abortion come up with some legislation to prevent lower class females from getting pregnant in the first place(which in general they seem to be against as well(ie Planned Parenthood funding))

Those that are against Abortion are against it, usually for religious reasons, so it isn't farfetched to think they would be against homosexuality as well...

As far as Planned Parenthood, I want a full audit done on them, total audit, and I want them to prove to me that none of their money is going to an elective surgery like abortion. If it is, and I mean any of it, even through a 3rd party, which I believe is happening....then I want that to stop. Other than that, more power to them....

[SV Fan]

Preventative pregnancy programs to me is being fiscally responsible in the long run(although I do agree auditing places you fund to see if the money is being used right). My guess is the republicans though won't back preventative pregnancy programs even if you can prove how fiscally it can benefit the country because then it's by proxy promoting pre marital sex.

[Thundercrack85]

Religion is the problem. And I'm not trying to go on an atheist rant here.

But if you are morally opposed to abortion, then logically you would be in favor of birth control, and better sex education.

But most pro-life people belong to religions which don't have a very positive view on birth control, or sex education... or sex in general (gay, premarital, etc).

Margaret Sanger the one who founded Planned Parenthood, ironically was "pro-life" or at least, anti-abortion. Part of the pitch for contraception was less abortions. And she actually opposed abortions on moral grounds, not for women's safety, like Susan B. Anthony.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Those that are against Abortion are against it, usually for religious reasons, so it isn't farfetched to think they would be against homosexuality as well...

As far as Planned Parenthood, I want a full audit done on them, total audit, and I want them to prove to me that none of their money is going to an elective surgery like abortion. If it is, and I mean any of it, even through a 3rd party, which I believe is happening....then I want that to stop. Other than that, more power to them....

Elective surgery is a tricky thing in terms of what is elective and what is better of life condition type things. Think of a soldier that's been badly burnt. Yes it would be elective surgery but it's also just something anyone with common decency would want done for that person.

That said I'd be all for your audit provided that they actually audited other groups that receive federal dollars. Like church hospitals and religious organizations in general. If you're really for fiscal responsibility and an even playing field then you need to be for it across the board.

All that said, abortion is a tricky issue. Fiscally it's far better for the country if people that don't want to have babies don't have them. I get annoyed with people that complain about welfare moms in one sentence then want any abortion to be illegal. You really don't get to have it both ways. If you're for bans on abortion you need to be for a massive increase in federal funding to the programs and new programs to deal with those children, because the parents obviously don't want them. And yes in a perfect world people would be perfectly responsible and this wouldn't be a problem but we live in this one and that's just reality.

Although the biggest and best solution minimizing all these costs and problems is actual and effective sex education. And no, abstinence isn't effective. Kids have sex. It happens. That's not going to change no matter how many times you read the bible. Every senator and adult that preaches this as a form of birth control was trying to get into some girl's pants when they were 16. We need to stop sending mixed "do what I say but not what I do, and for god's sake don't look in my closet at all the fetish gear" messages and just be frank about sex in the US. We start doing that and you stop a lot of potential abortions, unwanted pregnancies and federal and state expenses right from the start.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

Elective surgery is a tricky thing in terms of what is elective and what is better of life condition type things. Think of a soldier that's been badly burnt. Yes it would be elective surgery but it's also just something anyone with common decency would want done for that person.

That said I'd be all for your audit provided that they actually audited other groups that receive federal dollars. Like church hospitals and religious organizations in general. If you're really for fiscal responsibility and an even playing field then you need to be for it across the board.

All that said, abortion is a tricky issue. Fiscally it's far better for the country if people that don't want to have babies don't have them. I get annoyed with people that complain about welfare moms in one sentence then want any abortion to be illegal. You really don't get to have it both ways. If you're for bans on abortion you need to be for a massive increase in federal funding to the programs and new programs to deal with those children, because the parents obviously don't want them. And yes in a perfect world people would be perfectly responsible and this wouldn't be a problem but we live in this one and that's just reality.

Although the biggest and best solution minimizing all these costs and problems is actual and effective sex education. And no, abstinence isn't effective. Kids have sex. It happens. That's not going to change no matter how many times you read the bible. Every senator and adult that preaches this as a form of birth control was trying to get into some girl's pants when they were 16. We need to stop sending mixed "do what I say but not what I do, and for god's sake don't look in my closet at all the fetish gear" messages and just be frank about sex in the US. We start doing that and you stop a lot of potential abortions, unwanted pregnancies and federal and state expenses right from the start.

If it is threatening the life of the mother, then they are not going to go thorugh Planned Parenthood...they will go through a regular hospital, not a clinic. Therefore, that is not an issue, those going through Planned Parenthood, and then to a 3rd party clinic is for "elective surgery"....

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Kelly

If it is threatening the life of the mother, then they are not going to go thorugh Planned Parenthood...they will go through a regular hospital, not a clinic. Therefore, that is not an issue, those going through Planned Parenthood, and then to a 3rd party clinic is for "elective surgery"....

I agree. I was just saying elective surgery can be complicated. My reply to you was much more to the rest of what I wrote. I only tossed in the elective surgery bit because I had a friend badly burnt by a bomb in Afghanistan and he needed some elective surgery which made it tricky (but ultimately he got it) to get.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

I agree. I was just saying elective surgery can be complicated. My reply to you was much more to the rest of what I wrote. I only tossed in the elective surgery bit because I had a friend badly burnt by a bomb in Afghanistan and he needed some elective surgery which made it tricky (but ultimately he got it) to get.

Oh yeah, there is always that fine line. Especially in things like dental needs etc. But, that line really isn't there with abortion because it is VERY OBVIOUS to a doctor if the fetus poses a threat to the mother's life or not....if it does, then an abortion is warranted unless she wants to take the chance. Whereas going to Planned Parenthood for a consult and reference to possible places for the abortion (places that without an audit, to prove it, I believe a portion of Planned Parenthood's Federal money is going) is a whole other thing. Now, in that audit, as I said before, if it is proven that no federal dollars are going elsewhere other than for prenatal care, birth control etc...then more power to them. And I'm not just picking on Planned Parenthood, these audits should go across the board to every agency and outside agencies that receive Federal Funding. In education, it is damn near impossible to spend Federal money except EXACTLY where it is supposed to go....that wasn't always the case, so I know this can be done. School districts are audited annually, so there should be no problem for other agencies and outside entities to do the same.

[Excel]

*Watches GOP response*

REALLY??? This is the Republicans injection of youth and energy? That is what they think "charisma" is? Oh man, they have some work to do. It's the folks who thought John Edwards would be the next Bill Clinton because he had a nice smile and was from the south. Chris Christie is 10x more engaging than Marco Rubio, he is almost Bobby Jindal level flat.

Sarah Palin's meteoric rise really does say a lot about one thing - the Republican party is so, so BORING. The fact that she became such a rock star so quickly is merely evidence to how deprived of true charisma and star power that party is.

The truth is, in the past 25 years, they haven't an real 'star' not named Bush, while the Democrats have turned two Clintons, two Obamas, and Al Gore into political power houses. Joe Biden will have some legitimate clout to when he leaves office.

If Hillary runs 2016, I cannot envision her losing to any of the known Republicans. Between her resume, massive approval rating, huge advantage in name recognition, and the overall incompetence of the competition? A Hillary vs. Rubio show down might be Reagan level landslide. That would, effectively, put the Democrats in control of the White House for the net 16 years, through 2024.

They need someone ala Bill Clinton in 1992 who will not be anybody else's tool. Christie has the personality, but being from NJ will hurt.

All bias aside, Republican strategists everywhere have to thinking this to at least some degree. They really have to be. If Obama couldn't lose in 2012, to someone as accomplished and well financed as Mitt Romney, how on Earth will a lesser impressive candidate beat a much more impressive candidate in less favorable conditions?

The savior ouf the Republican party likely is not currently in elected office. Hell, he is probably like 20-25 years old, and we will not be hearing his or her name until the 2020s...

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I might be the new leader for the Republican party assuming the heavies behind the party--Limbaugh, etc.--don't stop me from turning the rest of the party against them.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Excel

*Watches GOP response*

REALLY??? This is the Republicans injection of youth and energy? That is what they think "charisma" is? Oh man, they have some work to do. It's the folks who thought John Edwards would be the next Bill Clinton because he had a nice smile and was from the south. Chris Christie is 10x more engaging than Marco Rubio, he is almost Bobby Jindal level flat.

Sarah Palin's meteoric rise really does say a lot about one thing - the Republican party is so, so BORING. The fact that she became such a rock star so quickly is merely evidence to how deprived of true charisma and star power that party is.

The truth is, in the past 25 years, they haven't an real 'star' not named Bush, while the Democrats have turned two Clintons, two Obamas, and Al Gore into political power houses. Joe Biden will have some legitimate clout to when he leaves office.

If Hillary runs 2016, I cannot envision her losing to any of the known Republicans. Between her resume, massive approval rating, huge advantage in name recognition, and the overall incompetence of the competition? A Hillary vs. Rubio show down might be Reagan level landslide. That would, effectively, put the Democrats in control of the White House for the net 16 years, through 2024.

They need someone ala Bill Clinton in 1992 who will not be anybody else's tool. Christie has the personality, but being from NJ will hurt.

All bias aside, Republican strategists everywhere have to thinking this to at least some degree. They really have to be. If Obama couldn't lose in 2012, to someone as accomplished and well financed as Mitt Romney, how on Earth will a lesser impressive candidate beat a much more impressive candidate in less favorable conditions?

The savior ouf the Republican party likely is not currently in elected office. Hell, he is probably like 20-25 years old, and we will not be hearing his or her name until the 2020s...

Unless Christie dramatically improves his physical health, I can't see him running for president.

Especially given how competitive the Republican field will be in 2016.

Rubio is the front runner. But there will be fierce competition.

Part of Sarah Palin's appeal was how much she was like the average Republican voter. Especially the average female Republican voter. Unlike say, the rich male Ivy League Republican establishment.

[Excel]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

For something which isn't a big deal really at all, it is becoming a huge deal because WOW was he awkward about that. Talk about obvious nerves. When I saw it blow up on Twitter, I thought it would just be dumb, but I legit LOL'd at how awkward the supposedly "cool" Rubio is.

[Excel]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Unless Christie dramatically improves his physical health, I can't see him running for president.

Especially given how competitive the Republican field will be in 2016.

Rubio is the front runner. But there will be fierce competition.

Part of Sarah Palin's appeal was how much she was like the average Republican voter. Especially the average female Republican voter. Unlike say, the rich male Ivy League Republican establishment.

Oh, I don't think Rubio is the front runner. I don't think there is one.

Christie could easily run if he wants to. If Newt Gingrich could run, Christie should be fine. I assume you're referring to keeping up with the campaign. I don't think Christie would be able to out Clinton a Clinton, and that is why he would lose.

There's Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, and...?

They have some things going for them, but can they defeat Hillary? c'mon now.

Without knowing a damn thing about his personal positions, the only guy I've come across who seems like his personality could even allow him to win a national election is virginia governor Bob McDonnell.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Excel

Oh, I don't think Rubio is the front runner. I don't think there is one.

Christie could easily run if he wants to. If Newt Gingrich could run, Christie should be fine. I assume you're referring to keeping up with the campaign. I don't think Christie would be able to out Clinton a Clinton, and that is why he would lose.

There's Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, and...?

They have some things going for them, but can they defeat Hillary? c'mon now.

Without knowing a damn thing about his personal positions, the only guy I've come across who seems like his personality could even allow him to win a national election is virginia governor Bob McDonnell.

You have a lot of faith in Hillary Clinton's electability. I don't share it. She lost the Democratic nomination to a no name, one-term senator from Illinois in 2008. Granted, she's had a decent run as a Secretary of State since, but we'll see what that translate into in 2016. Assuming she is even running, which is uncertain. And then there's Joe Biden's potential run, which would complicate things.

I wouldn't count out Bobby Jindal, Rick Scott, Chris Brown, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, and a few others.

Actually, Jeb Bush might be the most interesting one. Considering he could get both Florida and Texas, and be a moderate. His brother's legacy would be his biggest issue.

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by Excel

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

For something which isn't a big deal really at all, it is becoming a huge deal because WOW was he awkward about that. Talk about obvious nerves. When I saw it blow up on Twitter, I thought it would just be dumb, but I legit LOL'd at how awkward the supposedly "cool" Rubio is.

I literaly fell on the floor laughing when I saw that. Comedians will have a field day with It. It's gonna be Pall Ryan all over again.

[Excel]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

You have a lot of faith in Hillary Clinton's electability. I don't share it.

She would be, by a mile, the most high profile of the candidates running & probably the most anticipated candidate ever. When is the last time there was a large public demand for an individual to run for President? Serious question. Folks wanted Al Gore to run in 2004, but beyond that?

The excitement surrounding a Clinton return to the White House would be unprecedented.

She lost the Democratic nomination to a no name, one-term senator from Illinois in 2008.

Hillary wasmore polarizing then than she is now, and less accomplished. Her favorability and overall popularity were half of what they are now, and Bill Clinton was not held in the same esteem he currently is.

Plus, Obama was a once in a generation type of campaigner with enormous financial backing. Losing to a real 'movement' candidate doesn't say much about Hillary herself.

Granted, she's had a decent run as a Secretary of State since, but we'll see what that translate into in 2016. Assuming she is even running, which is uncertain. And then there's Joe Biden's potential run, which would complicate things.

It would be shocking if she were to run, and she'd crush Biden.

Can you even ponder what the ratings for the 2016 DNC would be, if on one night you have Bill Clinton (fresh off his 2012 speech) speaking, than one another night, have Barack Obama speaking, and then finally end with Hillary?

The buzz surrounding her candidacy would be deafening, something we've never really seen before in American politics. Everyone wanted Gore to run in 2000, but it wasn't what it would be Hillary. She's - by far - the most popular, respected, and (one of) the most accomplished politician in the country.

I wouldn't count out Bobby Jindal, Rick Scott, Chris Brown, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, and a few others.

They all have future, but none will win a national election. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley are too far too the right just like Rubio. Scott Walker not even the most popular politician from his state, and Rick Scott is loathed in Florida. Chris Brown?

Actually, Jeb Bush might be the most interesting one. Considering he could get both Florida and Texas, and be a moderate. His brother's legacy would be his biggest issue.

Jeb's problem is the national scene wants the GOP to change. He wouldn't be a bad President, but he would never overcome being another Bush. The country clearly wants the gOP to move away from Bush style politics.

[SV Fan]

Mitt Romney circa Oct 2012 called Rubio, he wants his campaign stump speech back.

[Thundercrack85]

Well, we'll see. She has to be running first. I'm not convinced. There's a reason Hillary lost to Obama. I also wouldn't dismiss Biden so quickly. Especially if he gets Obama's backing.

People here tend to discount the Republican Party (probably because most people here are Democrats, or at least lean to the left). Romney was a very lackluster candidate, running in a weak field against an incumbent, and he still got 47% of the vote. Democrats will admit they got very nervous after the first debate.

If the Republicans can get a candidate who can keep the Republican base moderately happy, and reach out to moderates (especially Latino's), they could conceivably win.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Well, we'll see. She has to be running first. I'm not convinced. There's a reason Hillary lost to Obama. I also wouldn't dismiss Biden so quickly. Especially if he gets Obama's backing.

People here tend to discount the Republican Party (probably because most people here are Democrats, or at least lean to the left). Romney was a very lackluster candidate, running in a weak field against an incumbent, and he still got 47% of the vote. Democrats will admit they got very nervous after the first debate.

If the Republicans can get a candidate who can keep the Republican base moderately happy, and reach out to moderates (especially Latino's), they could conceivably win.

She lost because the money saw a man that could make history being the first black man to win the Presidency, they rolled the dice that this was the year and they hit the jack pot. Had absolutely nothing to do with his experience, it was that people were looking for big ideas, not much substance, and history making possibilities and he gave them all of that...

When you lose the backing of the party and you are a party of caucuses you will lose. Those that were able to stay up all night, miss work, etc....were his people at the caucuses and they pulled him through. People need to remember she took it ALL THE WAY to the convention....few do that.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Kelly

She lost because the money saw a man that could make history being the first black man to win the Presidency, they rolled the dice that this was the year and they hit the jack pot. Had absolutely nothing to do with his experience, it was that people were looking for big ideas, not much substance, and history making possibilities and he gave them all of that...

When you lose the backing of the party and you are a party of caucuses you will lose. Those that were able to stay up all night, miss work, etc....were his people at the caucuses and they pulled him through. People need to remember she took it ALL THE WAY to the convention....few do that.

Let's hope the Democrats don't run a Latino then, for her sake. Guess being the first female president isn't historic enough.