Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[Excel]

"Send the liberal detractors a message that not only does Marco Rubio inspire you … he hydrates you too," the donation request read."

LOL I like it.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by Matt

The irony being, it is the upper-class/ruling class that are perpetuating a class war between the middle class and lower middle class/lower class and almost everyone is blind to it. They convince the stupid that it is the poor who is taking their money rather than the corporate fat cats and get them to turn on each other.

For once Matt, I find myself in complete agreement with you. I don't get how average people can advocate for the rich getting all the breaks, and yet will decry the poor as the ones doing all the taking, when it's the other way 'round.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Bathead

For once Matt, I find myself in complete agreement with you. I don't get how average people can advocate for the rich getting all the breaks, and yet will decry the poor as the ones doing all the taking, when it's the other way 'round.

But they are the almighty Job Creators

You know how it works

God - the Pope - Job Creators - President - then us lowly peasants

Although I think given time the Job Creators will overtake the Pope's importance.

[wiegeabo]

I remember what I was thinking about now.

Moffat had said he wanted to keep Matt around for at least 5 years. He had a five year plan in mind.

[Mad Love]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

But they are the almighty Job Creators

You know how it works

God - the Pope - Job Creators - President - then us lowly peasants

Although I think given time the Job Creators will overtake the Pope's importance.

The Job Creators and the Pope tells us what God wants

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by JJJ's Ulcer

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.

No, it's called that they appeal to just more than one faction of the GOP. Someone who is just purely evangelical is not going to go far. You have to appeal to multiple factions within the party. Beyond just the religious sect because they are just a minority within the party (not half). I've never said that they were fringe, because they're not, they're a prominent part of the party. But half? That's really pushing. I would say the evangelical wing makes up to about a third of the GOP's ideological make up.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

What I say is true about the Commission and two-party system. You can believe it or not, that is up to you.

No, the two-party system has nothing to do with the Commission's practices. The only way to go beyond a two-party system is to develop a proportional method of voting. It's far more trickier than the simplistic viewpoint you're making it out to be.

The League of Women Voters even said the Commission was going to commit a farce on the American People.

So?

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.

It is fair. Sure, you can be on enough ballots, but if you don't even register 1% in the polls, you're not worth the time and effort to get attention.

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.

Except the GOP wants libertarians. It was well reported that Romney was very interested in trying to tap into Paul's grassroots movement, which he ended up failing spectacularly at.

If that changes, I hope it happens for the LP. All I see the two parties doing is destroying this country financially.

The Libertarian Party will be forever doomed to obscurity. The only way the Libertarian Movement can become more prominent is by becoming a more prominent faction within the GOP.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Except the GOP wants libertarians. It was well reported that Romney was very interested in trying to tap into Paul's grassroots movement, which he ended up failing spectacularly at.

I really thought it would have been a smart move for Romney to campaign on legalizing(or at least decriminalizing it at the federal level) weed. It would have given him cred with libertarians and he also could have used financial and social issues(ie how it hurts the black community due to the brunt of the criminalization going against them, jail, etc) as his logic. All that being said it's hard for a republican to act like they are libertarian when it comes to social issues and defense spending(where they are the exact opposite of libertarians).

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I really thought it would have been a smart move for Romney to campaign on legalizing(or at least decriminalizing it at the federal level) weed. It would have given him cred with libertarians and he also could have used financial and social issues(ie how it hurts the black community due to the brunt of the criminalization going against them, jail, etc) as his logic. All that being said it's hard for a republican to act like they are libertarian when it comes to social issues and defense spending(where they are the exact opposite of libertarians).

People like him are so afraid of losing the base Republicans that they won't take that chance, which is totally ridiculous because the people that they would gain, would probably at least equal those that would have simply not voted.....and that group really cannot stand Obama, so they probably, in the end, would have held their nose and voted for Romney anyway... BUT THE PEOPLE THAT HE HAD ADVISING HIM, would have never gone for that...that is why these guys need to not go with ANY OF THE REGULAR ADVISERS the next time around.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Kelly

People like him are so afraid of losing the base Republicans that they won't take that chance, which is totally ridiculous because the people that they would gain, would probably at least equal those that would have simply not voted.....and that group really cannot stand Obama, so they probably, in the end, would have held their nose and voted for Romney anyway... BUT THE PEOPLE THAT HE HAD ADVISING HIM, would have never gone for that...that is why these guys need to not go with ANY OF THE REGULAR ADVISERS the next time around.

Just say you are following the lead of Pat Robertson

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

No, the two-party system has nothing to do with the Commission's practices. The only way to go beyond a two-party system is to develop a proportional method of voting. It's far more trickier than the simplistic viewpoint you're making it out to be.


So?


It is fair. Sure, you can be on enough ballots, but if you don't even register 1% in the polls, you're not worth the time and effort to get attention.


Except the GOP wants libertarians. It was well reported that Romney was very interested in trying to tap into Paul's grassroots movement, which he ended up failing spectacularly at.


The Libertarian Party will be forever doomed to obscurity. The only way the Libertarian Movement can become more prominent is by becoming a more prominent faction within the GOP.

1. If it had nothing to do with the Commission's practices, then why would former R's and D's be running it?

2. So? The League didn't want to work with the Commission, cause the Commission generally won't ask tough questions or allow 3rd parties into the debates.

3. But news coverage doesn't cover 3rd parties unless they have $$$. Hint: Perot.

4. Yea, cause the RNC was rigged. Ron Paul was suppose to have a speaking slot there, but it got taken out underneath him. Now of course that could be a conspiracy, cause by that time, I was paying more attention to Johnson, not Paul. But word is online certain delegates that were for Paul got their voting power stripped at the last second due to legal challenges.

5. Why should libertarians share a party with other fractions? Do you honestly think a Libertarian will get the GOP Nomination in 2016 or 2020? Oh yea, Rand Paul is doing everything he can to be in the news these days, but it seems the Party and MSM likes Rubio and Christie more.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

No, it's called that they appeal to just more than one faction of the GOP. Someone who is just purely evangelical is not going to go far. You have to appeal to multiple factions within the party. Beyond just the religious sect because they are just a minority within the party (not half). I've never said that they were fringe, because they're not, they're a prominent part of the party. But half? That's really pushing. I would say the evangelical wing makes up to about a third of the GOP's ideological make up.

I don't think we're going to agree if we can't agree on facts. Half is not pushing it. Not anymore. Maybe 20 years ago, they were a minority, but they are on their way to being a majority. I wish I was wrong.

The Republican Party is increasingly becoming a regional party, dominated by Southerners, who are mostly Evangelicals. God and guns, etc. Just read their platform, I believe God is mentioned a dozen times (in the Texas platform it's two dozen times). In most countries they would be considered a religious party.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

1. If it had nothing to do with the Commission's practices, then why would former R's and D's be running it?

They're not former R's and D's, they are R's and D's almost everyone is a Republican or a Democrat in this country.

2. So? The League didn't want to work with the Commission, cause the Commission generally won't ask tough questions or allow 3rd parties into the debates.

Unless third parties show that they are viable, they shouldn't be allowed in. Their complaint on the issue is pointless.

3. But news coverage doesn't cover 3rd parties unless they have $$$. Hint: Perot.

Perot had more than just money. He actually had an appealing message to go along with that money.

4. Yea, cause the RNC was rigged. Ron Paul was suppose to have a speaking slot there, but it got taken out underneath him. Now of course that could be a conspiracy, cause by that time, I was paying more attention to Johnson, not Paul. But word is online certain delegates that were for Paul got their voting power stripped at the last second due to legal challenges.

Well, yeah, Paul did get screwed in the RNC, no doubt about that.

5. Why should libertarians share a party with other fractions? Do you honestly think a Libertarian will get the GOP Nomination in 2016 or 2020? Oh yea, Rand Paul is doing everything he can to be in the news these days, but it seems the Party and MSM likes Rubio and Christie more.

Because if they don't become a more prominent part of the GOP, they are forever doomed to obscurity. Third parties don't win. Period.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

I don't think we're going to agree if we can't agree on facts. Half is not pushing it. Not anymore. Maybe 20 years ago, they were a minority, but they are on their way to being a majority. I wish I was wrong.

The Republican Party is increasingly becoming a regional party, dominated by Southerners, who are mostly Evangelicals. God and guns, etc. Just read their platform, I believe God is mentioned a dozen times (in the Texas platform it's two dozen times). In most countries they would be considered a religious party.

At the Presidential level you may have a point at the regionalization of the Republican Party, but you completely ignore the fact that Republicans are doing quite well at the state levels where they hold the majority of governorships and legislatures, even in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

You are overexaggerating on the evangelical wing of the party. Most people I associate with are Republicans, the vast majority of them are not evangelicals. As a matter in fact, the GOP is actually quite diverse ideologically, far more so than the Democrats. Now I know plenty of evangelical Republicans, to say that they're irrelevant is well....wrong. But to say that they're the majority is blatantly false.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

They're not former R's and D's, they are R's and D's almost everyone is a Republican or a Democrat in this country.


Unless third parties show that they are viable, they shouldn't be allowed in. Their complaint on the issue is pointless.


Perot had more than just money. He actually had an appealing message to go along with that money.


Well, yeah, Paul did get screwed in the RNC, no doubt about that.


Because if they don't become a more prominent part of the GOP, they are forever doomed to obscurity. Third parties don't win. Period.

1. explain this.

The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates

2. explain this one as well.

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates

3. Well. Gary Johnson had a appealing message. Yet, no money.

4. We agree on something. About time.

5. I don't think you answered my question. Do you think Rand Paul or any libertarian-Republican will get the nomination in 2016 or 2020? I personally see the GOP having a identity crisis. And I don't see the Liberty movement making any big noise. I mean, have we had a libertarian President?

And why not...

During the last week of September, 2012, three sponsors withdrew their sponsorship of the 2012 debates for not including third parties: BBH New York, YWCA USA and Philips Electronics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

1. explain this.

2. explain this one as well.

Explain what? That third parties will never be viable in this country. Because I've thoroughly explained it to you already and yet you keep thinking that some pointless debate commission is the problem as opposed to the electoral system itself.

What's there to explain? A Republican and Democrat run the Commission. Most people are Republicans or Democrats. Even though I lean libertarian, I'm still a registered Republican. And it would be better to have people who have experience with campaigns and the executive branch because they know the protocol involving debates.

And Paul Kirk is right, third party candidates should be excluded from the debates. When you register less than 1% in the polls, you're not worth the time and effort. There's also the simple fact that debates really don't matter at all. Obama was slightly leading in the polls before the debates and guess what? He won the election slightly. Kennedy was leading over Nixon before the infamous Kennedy/Nixon debate; and guess what? Kennedy won! The 15% threshold is very fair, it shows that you have an impact on the election and that a significant amount of people are considering you.

3. Well. Gary Johnson had a appealing message. Yet, no money.

And Ron Paul kinda drowning him out.

5. I don't think you answered my question. Do you think Rand Paul or any libertarian-Republican will get the nomination in 2016 or 2020? I personally see the GOP having a identity crisis. And I don't see the Liberty movement making any big noise. I mean, have we had a libertarian President?

I think it depends on the field of candidates in 2016. If we get the jokers that we got in 2008, then I think that Rand Paul would have a very good chance of winning the nomination. He's a good candidate, much more politically savvy than his father, and has the grassroots support. Right now Paul just appeals to the libertarian base of the Republican Party, but he has a lot of potential to go beyond that, something his father never could do.

But if the AAA Republicans decide to run in 2016 like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush, Paul will have a harder time. They have appeal to multiple bases of the party and the Super PACs like American Crossroads are going to pour their money into a candidate that is more likely guaranteed to win the general election.

And why not...

The reason why we haven't had a libertarian President, because overall, America isn't a libertarian country. It's mostly a center/conservative one. When libertarians like Ron Paul start talking **** against entitlements and our foreign policy, people don't like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates

So? They have the right to complain about the practices of the Commission, doesn't mean that their opinion has any intelligence to it. Even if third parties were admitted to the debates (which they shouldn't), it still wouldn't change a damn thing. Your point has no meaning to it.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

But they are the almighty Job CreatorsYou know how it works

God - the Pope - Job Creators - President - then us lowly peasants

Although I think given time the Job Creators will overtake the Pope's importance.

I have yet to see these so-called job creators do any such thing. All the tax breaks these people have been operating under these past few years since the Bush era, and the job rate has done nothing but decline. The so-called "job -creators" concept is a myth. Thes folks have been taking these tax-breaks and putting them in their pockets and not investing them in the jobs market like they claimed they would.

[wiegeabo]

Why should they when we've made the marketplace so anti-competitive that it's far easier to just hold onto the money.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Bathead

I have yet to see these so-called job creators do any such thing. All the tax breaks these people have been operating under these past few years since the Bush era, and the job rate has done nothing but decline. The so-called "job -creators" concept is a myth. Thes folks have been taking these tax-breaks and putting them in their pockets and not investing them in the jobs market like they claimed they would.

Well, small businesses are the job creators, that is kind of obvious. BUT, they will hire those people if they know that the future deems they will need them. The future is so up in the air right now, because all they see happening over the past few years are things that take more and more money out of their pocket, and our economy is not even growing at 1%, it is actually less than that. It needs to be growing at at least 3% we would like 4%. So they are holding on to their money...I don't blame them. NOW, did the tax breaks help them? apparently not, but Obama now owns this economy...what happens now he is held accountable for....Bush has had his time. He screwed it up as well, but his time of being the "holder of all things wrong is this world..." are now gone. Good luck to Obama, its all his now.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Well, small businesses are the job creators, that is kind of obvious. BUT, they will hire those people if they know that the future deems they will need them. The future is so up in the air right now, because all they see happening over the past few years are things that take more and more money out of their pocket, and our economy is not even growing at 1%, it is actually less than that. It needs to be growing at at least 3% we would like 4%. So they are holding on to their money...I don't blame them. NOW, did the tax breaks help them? apparently not, but Obama now owns this economy...what happens now he is held accountable for....Bush has had his time. He screwed it up as well, but his time of being the "holder of all things wrong is this world..." are now gone. Good luck to Obama, its all his now.

I think the problem is the Republicans throw around the term "Job Creator" so much as if giving tax breaks people are instantly going to create jobs, which is ridiculous. Simple fact if a business saves X amount due to tax breaks, they will not create extra jobs out of the goodness of their heart, they will only create those jobs if the economy demands they do. The term basically sounds like it comes from the Frank Luntz word factory

I honestly wish somebody would call out the term for the stupidity it has, instead the Democrats got sucked into using it themselves which buys into the Republican talking point that business owners are somehow demigods who we owe everything in the world to.

What I find even funnier is you look at the amount of focus both parties give to business owners in elections and how much of the electorate is actually a business owner it's almost a waste of time and assets pandering to a group that has a very small voting power.

[wiegeabo]

Small voting power.

HUGE financial power.

Especially when it comes to political donations and lobbying.


And, the sad thing is, the people just let them get away with. Instead of exercising their collective power.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Explain what? That third parties will never be viable in this country. Because I've thoroughly explained it to you already and yet you keep thinking that some pointless debate commission is the problem as opposed to the electoral system itself.

What's there to explain? A Republican and Democrat run the Commission. Most people are Republicans or Democrats. Even though I lean libertarian, I'm still a registered Republican. And it would be better to have people who have experience with campaigns and the executive branch because they know the protocol involving debates.

And Paul Kirk is right, third party candidates should be excluded from the debates. When you register less than 1% in the polls, you're not worth the time and effort. There's also the simple fact that debates really don't matter at all. Obama was slightly leading in the polls before the debates and guess what? He won the election slightly. Kennedy was leading over Nixon before the infamous Kennedy/Nixon debate; and guess what? Kennedy won! The 15% threshold is very fair, it shows that you have an impact on the election and that a significant amount of people are considering you.


And Ron Paul kinda drowning him out.


I think it depends on the field of candidates in 2016. If we get the jokers that we got in 2008, then I think that Rand Paul would have a very good chance of winning the nomination. He's a good candidate, much more politically savvy than his father, and has the grassroots support. Right now Paul just appeals to the libertarian base of the Republican Party, but he has a lot of potential to go beyond that, something his father never could do.

But if the AAA Republicans decide to run in 2016 like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush, Paul will have a harder time. They have appeal to multiple bases of the party and the Super PACs like American Crossroads are going to pour their money into a candidate that is more likely guaranteed to win the general election.


The reason why we haven't had a libertarian President, because overall, America isn't a libertarian country. It's mostly a center/conservative one. When libertarians like Ron Paul start talking **** against entitlements and our foreign policy, people don't like it.


So? They have the right to complain about the practices of the Commission, doesn't mean that their opinion has any intelligence to it. Even if third parties were admitted to the debates (which they shouldn't), it still wouldn't change a damn thing. Your point has no meaning to it.

So, let me ask this. If or when the country has a monetary collapse, are people still going to keep voting for the two parties that caused a monetary collapse? No party wants to cut spending in D.C. They just want to reduce the amount of spending, no real cuts. Our dollar is horrible right now.

Also, both parties are idiotic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91I0EM20130219

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

Small voting power.

HUGE financial power.

Especially when it comes to political donations and lobbying.


And, the sad thing is, the people just let them get away with. Instead of exercising their collective power.

I have absolutely no problem making special legislation for actual small businesses(something like special breaks on the first million of profit) but the problem for me is it just seem like the Republicans so called love for the small businessman is they want those special breaks to apply to all businesses whether they make 100k or 1 billion(as if that 1 Billion dollar business needs that special tax break and they will magically use it to create more jobs)

I do agree though it is huge financial power when you look at the top end of business who pump money into the message. All that being said to be constantly talking about business(small or otherwise) and what is good for them is bound to turn of some people who don't own a business and say what are you going to do that will benefit me. Now you may fear some of those who feel that if you don't give a tax break to the business they work for they might shut down or move, but for people who are comfortable in their job it's a meaningless message that makes the Republican party seem out of touch with the regular joe(given the amount of time they push it compared to other issues)

[Handsome Rob]

The more the government micro-manages business and the economy, the more incentive businesses have to lobby the government for favorable treatment.

You can't demand that government continually involve itself (and involve itself more and more) in the affairs of business and then tell the business they shouldn't try to get government to act favorably for their particular business or industry.

And as to that level of involvement, wiegeabo is spot on:

Why should they when we've made the marketplace so anti-competitive that it's far easier to just hold onto the money.

Lowering the tax rate is meaningless, anyway, if you're just going to pile on compliance costs with regulations and additional charges that eat into or devour any income resulting from a reduced tax liability.

A business owner might say, "So you've reduced my tax liability by $100,000, but it's going to cost me $100,000 to have a law firm review our business practices to make sure we're in compliance with new regulations stemming from Obamacare and Dodd-Frank AND to have that new equipment installed to make sure we're in compliance with EPA regs handed down since 2009."

[dnno1]

Talk about the future of the Republican Party:


Ted Cruz




Joe McCarthy

Pretty Scary.