Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[Matt]

BTW, John McCain is on Meet the Press. Got into a pretty heated exchange with David Gregory over a coverup regarding Benghazi. He really does come off as a senile old man. He should've retired following the 2000 election. Instead he sold out to the very thing he fought against in the 2000 primary.

[Kelly]

I get tired of them griping about, WHO'S FAULT WAS IT.....how about, HOW ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN....at this point, there are so many people to blame you need to fire the entire state department....

Far too many **** ups to begin, now the best thing is to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Change things like billions of dollars of the State Department budget going to "green job" ****....stop that kind of stuff and do a better job of using that money for things that the State Department should be using it to do....like better security for high risk embassies.

[enterthemadness]

The Liberty vote is really going to get split in half one of these days...cause people still have grand delusions of a libertarian being embraced by the GOP, and running in 2016 or 2020. It ain't happening. Republicans hate libertarians, and Democrats seem to be meh on libertarians.

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/02/17/vo...rian-republica

How about we get the Libertarian Party even more votes in 2016 instead. Even if it came down to Rand Paul (R) vs Hilary Clinton (D), I can't vote for a Republican or a Democrat. I...holy crap my stomach made a weird noise, but yea, I would still support the LP. Why? Cause the two parties are epic, rich, spoiled d-bags, that is why.

[Thundercrack85]

If only people had been this interested in finding out how 9/11 was allowed to happen. Someone might have been fired.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

The Liberty vote is really going to get split in half one of these days...cause people still have grand delusions of a libertarian being embraced by the GOP, and running in 2016 or 2020. It ain't happening. Republicans hate libertarians, and Democrats seem to be meh on libertarians.

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/02/17/vo...rian-republica

How about we get the Libertarian Party even more votes in 2016 instead. Even if it came down to Rand Paul (R) vs Hilary Clinton (D), I can't vote for a Republican or a Democrat. I...holy crap my stomach made a weird noise, but yea, I would still support the LP. Why? Cause the two parties are epic, rich, spoiled d-bags, that is why.

Face it dude, third parties are never going to make it in this system. The FPTP voting system, various election laws, tactics of the major parties, and history pretty much cemented this country as a two party system. The only way we're going to get a libertarian candidate is by getting a libertarian Republican.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Face it dude, third parties are never going to make it in this system. The FPTP voting system, various election laws, tactics of the major parties, and history pretty much cemented this country as a two party system. The only way we're going to get a libertarian candidate is by getting a libertarian Republican.

I rather see...well, to be honest, Hilary Clinton win in 2016 and 2020. Oh, I hate both parties, but Democrats don't treat me like ****. Republican Party gets me so mad. I hope the Liberty movement dies in the GOP. It is clear the GOP doesn't like libertarians. Why most are 'hard headed' I dunno. It ain't happening. Rand Paul can try all he wants, he ain't gonna get the Nomination.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

I rather see...well, to be honest, Hilary Clinton win in 2016 and 2020. Oh, I hate both parties, but Democrats don't treat me like ****. Republican Party gets me so mad. I hope the Liberty movement dies in the GOP. It is clear the GOP doesn't like libertarians. Why most are 'hard headed' I dunno. It ain't happening. Rand Paul can try all he wants, he ain't gonna get the Nomination.

Except the Democrats do treat people as ****** as Republicans. And if the Liberty Movement dies in the GOP you can say good bye to any libertarian getting traction in politics. The GOP is the way to go for the libertarian movement.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Except the Democrats do treat people as ****** as Republicans. And if the Liberty Movement dies in the GOP you can say good bye to any libertarian getting traction in politics. The GOP is the way to go for the libertarian movement.

Except, the GOP has made it clear, it does not want libertarians in it's party. And the GOP doesn't need libertarians to win, it just needs to ditch it's...well, ya know, fraction it has controlling it, and go back to conservative/moderate.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

Except, the GOP has made it clear, it does not want libertarians in it's party. And the GOP doesn't need libertarians to win, it just needs to ditch it's...well, ya know, fraction it has controlling it, and go back to conservative/moderate.

The GOP wants as many people it can get, which includes the libertarian movement. But the fact is that unless you want the libertarian movement to be irrelevant, the GOP is the best bet. A viable third party libertarian candidate will never happen. Never in a million years. Anyone who has faith in a third party is delusional.

[Kelly]

ETM you are talking about the small, but very vocal right wing christian faction in the GOP against Libertarians...the TRUE CONSERVATIVES are happy to have them in the party.

[fanboiii]

There aren't enough true conservatives in the Republican Party. Too many of them preach small government while adding more legislation and restrictions. Marriage equality and right to choose should be supported by true conservatives.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

The GOP wants as many people it can get, which includes the libertarian movement. But the fact is that unless you want the libertarian movement to be irrelevant, the GOP is the best bet. A viable third party libertarian candidate will never happen. Never in a million years. Anyone who has faith in a third party is delusional.

then good thing my name is ENTER THE MADNESS

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

If the Republican Party is in a state of upheaval, why don't the Libertarians slowly integrate with the party and begin building support from within the party?

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

If the Republican Party is in a state of upheaval, why don't the Libertarians slowly integrate with the party and begin building support from within the party?

If libertarians took over the GOP, it would end the two party system, cause libertarians would force the Commission on Presidential Debates to ease their rules and let other parties compete. Remember, former R's and D's run teh Commission. Not libertarian R and D's, but R's and D's. Both parties in their current form are rigging the system. libertarians take over the GOP, I can't see the Commission surviving in it's current form.


Another reason why the GOP don't want libertarians.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

If libertarians took over the GOP, it would end the two party system, cause libertarians would force the Commission on Presidential Debates to ease their rules and let other parties compete. Remember, former R's and D's run teh Commission. Not libertarian R and D's, but R's and D's. Both parties in their current form are rigging the system. libertarians take over the GOP, I can't see the Commission surviving in it's current form.

Ummmmm.....no. That wouldn't happen at all. If libertarians took over the GOP they would just be another faction within the party. A prominent one, but it would still just be a part of the GOP. It wouldn't end the two party system, they wouldn't force the commission to needlessly ease their rules, and the political system would still be the same.

The only way change will come about is by completely reforming the electoral system away from the FPTP system we currently have into an electoral system that is more proportional. Everything you say in regards to villainizing the Commission and the two-party system is blatantly untrue and naive. Easing the standards on Presidential debates will do nothing to change the political landscape and the viability of third party candidates. You want to change it? This goes far beyond the rules that are put into place. You have to look at the way we vote.

And third party candidates just aren't worth the time and effort to be put on the official debates with the Republicans and Democrats. The 15% threshold is fair. Someone who isn't being taken seriously doesn't deserve to be up there. Plain and simple.

Another reason why the GOP don't want libertarians.

Again false. Being a national party, the GOP wants as many people as possible to vote for them. This includes evangelicals, libertarians, neo-conservatives, fiscal hawks, moderates, Latinos, white people, men, women, senior citizens, etc. Cutting out groups of people just makes no sense at all, it's why the GOP lost in 2012.

[Thundercrack85]

I doubt the Libertarians make up more than 10% of the Republican Party.

There's a bit of overlapping with the various groups.

I'd say the Religious Right makes up about half the party. Maybe a bit more. The remaining half are Old Money, the fiscally conservative, military families, and socially conservative non-Christians.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

I doubt the Libertarians make up more than 10% of the Republican Party.

There's a bit of overlapping with the various groups.

I'd say the Religious Right makes up about half the party. Maybe a bit more. The remaining half are Old Money, the fiscally conservative, military families, and socially conservative non-Christians.

Wow...you really have an incredibly skewed and inaccurate view of the GOP. The evangelical wing of the GOP does not make up half of the GOP. They make up half of the primary voting base, which is quite problematic, but primary voters are only a fraction of Republicans. Less than a third dude.

And your views on the remaining half, again. WAAAAAAY off. Wealthy people are just as likely to support Democrats as they are Republicans. And the GOP also contains its share of moderates, neo-conservatives, libertarians, etc. The viewpoint you espouse is essentially the Daily Kos view of Republicans, which is just as accurate as the Fox News viewpoint of Democrats in that they're all a bunch of commie godless socialist hippies who want to take your guns away.

[Thundercrack85]

It's not a viewpoint, it is reality. Look at the data.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/re...religious.aspx

Are you familiar with the Bible Belt?

Look at the politics. The policies. 50% is a conservative estimate. What sort of people do you think support someone like George W. Bush who has Ted Haggard on speed dial?

Also, Old Money does not mean "rich people", it's a certain group of rich people. Who are predominately conservative.

You may want to reread my post.

[hippie_hunter]

First off, you're basing it on an outdated poll. Second, just because one is religious, doesn't automatically make them an evangelical Todd Akin supporting nutbag. Third, that poll fails to go into the various ideological wings of the Republican Party. It's called you're making awful assumptions.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Easing the standards on Presidential debates will do nothing to change the political landscape and the viability of third party candidates.

I disagree, put a guy in a debate his popularity instantly would go up. I think if Gary Johnson got an equal amount of news and debate time, he could get as high as 20%. It's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy saying a guy isn't popular enough to deserve attention and won't get X amount of votes, when you don't give a guy an equal chance. Look at Ron Paul, Fox News completely ignored him while giving every yahoo like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain tons of spotlight. The 3 I mentioned all benefited positively from getting spotlight while Ron Paul had to fight for every vote he could. You don't thinK Ron Paul would have gotten more votes if Fox News gave him half the coverage they gave the 3 I mentioned?

[wiegeabo]

The debate standard should be if you can get on the ballot in all 50 states.

If all the States say you're a candidate for President, why should you be left out of the debate?

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

First off, you're basing it on an outdated poll. Second, just because one is religious, doesn't automatically make them an evangelical Todd Akin supporting nutbag. Third, that poll fails to go into the various ideological wings of the Republican Party. It's called you're making awful assumptions.

I agree the poll is outdated, more secular people have left the party. You haven't refuted anything with facts. Todd Akin is just one example. George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, these are not fringe figures in the party.

Their supporters, who share their beliefs, compromise roughly half of the Republican party.

There's a reason someone like Rick Santorum gets serious consideration to be the party's nominee.

Moderates are leaving the party in droves. You can't deny that.

[hippie_hunter]

But they have gained their prominence through other means than just the evangelicals. Being governor of one of the most powerful states like Texas is going to get people like Bush and Perry far. Palin wouldn't have gotten as far as she did without being McCain's running mate, and now, she really isn't that far up the chain. Santorum used to be the third most powerful Senator. Gingrich used to be Speaker of the House, who is out of date now. Their local positions allowed them to obtain national prominence.

But you don't see the Michelle Bachmanns, Todd Akins, and Richard Mourdocks get very far. They appeal to just a portion of the party. A prominent portion, no doubt, but you need to go beyond just the initial base. That is how the others got far as well, they appealed beyond their initial base. Santorum appealed to blue collar Republicans, do you really think that a Republican from Pennsylvania would have gotten far without some form of mass appeal. Bush appealed to all sorts of Republicans, evangelicals, neo-conservatives, moderates, and initially libertarians and fiscal hawks with his rhetoric. Add in the blue collar appeal and it's easy to see how Bush was able to get far. Gingrich used to be a really good politician. You don't become Speaker of the House without master political skills. Bush and Perry were able to obtain 40% of the Latino vote in Texas. How they were able to go far goes way beyond just being an evangelical.

And Sarah Palin, she was a woefully under-qualified VP candidate chosen because of her genitals and given an absurd amount of media attention. That was what got her to go far. And now look at her. She's unpopular to the point where she can't win the White House, her own state hates her, she got fired from Fox News for being a drama queen, and holds no position within her party. Unlike the others you mention, she's a nobody.

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

But they have gained their prominence through other means than just the evangelicals. Being governor of one of the most powerful states like Texas is going to get people like Bush and Perry far. Palin wouldn't have gotten as far as she did without being McCain's running mate, and now, she really isn't that far up the chain. Santorum used to be the third most powerful Senator. Gingrich used to be Speaker of the House, who is out of date now. Their local positions allowed them to obtain national prominence.

But HOW did they get elected to prominent positions such as Governor, Senator and Speaker of the House in the first place? Because their electorate doesn't see them as fringe candidates, but as reasonable and appealing alternatives to the Democratic party. Thus you just validated what Thundercrack said about them representing the GOP mainstream instead of its fringe.

As for the others... if Akin and Mourdock hadn't made one or two stupid comments they'd both be Senators today. Their extremist positions aren't what sunk their nominations, just how they expressed them. Look at Mike Huckabee. Huckabee and Akin are probably 99% in synch on issues. The only difference is Huckabee knows how to package his ideas better. The GOP isn't rejecting candidates because of extremist ideas, but embracing them. These days their fringe is the moderates of their party. Those are the ones being purged and becoming more and more marginalized.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Ummmmm.....no. That wouldn't happen at all. If libertarians took over the GOP they would just be another faction within the party. A prominent one, but it would still just be a part of the GOP. It wouldn't end the two party system, they wouldn't force the commission to needlessly ease their rules, and the political system would still be the same.

The only way change will come about is by completely reforming the electoral system away from the FPTP system we currently have into an electoral system that is more proportional. Everything you say in regards to villainizing the Commission and the two-party system is blatantly untrue and naive. Easing the standards on Presidential debates will do nothing to change the political landscape and the viability of third party candidates. You want to change it? This goes far beyond the rules that are put into place. You have to look at the way we vote.

And third party candidates just aren't worth the time and effort to be put on the official debates with the Republicans and Democrats. The 15% threshold is fair. Someone who isn't being taken seriously doesn't deserve to be up there. Plain and simple.


Again false. Being a national party, the GOP wants as many people as possible to vote for them. This includes evangelicals, libertarians, neo-conservatives, fiscal hawks, moderates, Latinos, white people, men, women, senior citizens, etc. Cutting out groups of people just makes no sense at all, it's why the GOP lost in 2012.

What I say is true about the Commission and two-party system. You can believe it or not, that is up to you. The League of Women Voters even said the Commission was going to commit a farce on the American People. It has. The entry rule into the debates used to be lower than 15%. If the two parties were fair....ballot access laws and the Commission would be fairer. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were on enough state ballots to win the election, they should had be invited to at least 1 debate. You get on enough state ballots, which takes plenty of time and resources for a 3rd Party to do, then you should be in at least 1 debate.

The Republican Party had their chance with Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. They didn't support him. They don't want libertarians, cause libertarians are gonna bring about lots of change or try to in this country, and the two parties don't want that. Not only that, money talks. Rich libertarians don't run at all it seems. If that changes, I hope it happens for the LP. All I see the two parties doing is destroying this country financially.