Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[SV Fan]

I guess the big question is, will the GOP engage in actual self critical reflection before the next election or will they do what they always do, assume all their problems are the fault of Democrats, liberals and Republicans who are not ideological pure enough and assume that because they won the mid term election in 2014, that they don't have ask themselves any real questions.

When the GOP lost the Presidential election in 2008, it looked like they might do some soul searching, however when they won the mid term in 2010, they assumed they did not have to do anymore soul searching, that they an absolute man date to do whatever they felt like and then they lost in 2012. Will this win in 2014 give them the same sort of hubris? Will they ever truly engage in real self reflection?

I actually think Jeb Bush has done a good job trying to play the middle ground, now can he survive a primary is another question.

I think the main problem with the Republican party is they hold these clown car conventions it seems like every other month and you have people who want legitimate political careers on the same stage with a bunch of looney tunes like Trump, Palin, Gohmert, Bachmann, etc etc etc. Sometimes you wrongfully get lumped with the company you don't seem to mind to be around. Other times it's a case to out Gohmert a Gohmert so you can get an applause line you have to say ridiculous things(such as Walker comparing terrorists to union people protesting). These Clown car conventions are basically comedy gold trying to find soundbites of candidates saying stupid things, then all of a sudden you lump a bunch of clips in a row of Gohmert, Palin, Legitimate candidate 1, Jindal, Trump, Legitimate Candidate 2, Santorum, Herman Cain, The Guy from Duck Dynasty, Some uber social conservative PAC leader, Ted Nugent the 2 legit candidates look terrible especially when the stuff coming out of there mouth is just as crazy as all the other crazies..

 

[hippie_hunter]

I guess the big question is, will the GOP engage in actual self critical reflection before the next election or will they do what they always do, assume all their problems are the fault of Democrats, liberals and Republicans who are not ideological pure enough and assume that because they won the mid term election in 2014, that they don't have ask themselves any real questions.

When the GOP lost the Presidential election in 2008, it looked like they might do some soul searching, however when they won the mid term in 2010, they assumed they did not have to do anymore soul searching, that they an absolute man date to do whatever they felt like and then they lost in 2012. Will this win in 2014 give them the same sort of hubris? Will they ever truly engage in real self reflection?

I think the GOP establishment knows the problems that the party is facing. The problem is that the conservative hardliners are in denial about the problems.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I actually think Jeb Bush has done a good job trying to play the middle ground, now can he survive a primary is another question.

I think the main problem with the Republican party is they hold these clown car conventions it seems like every other month and you have people who want legitimate political careers on the same stage with a bunch of looney tunes like Trump, Palin, Gohmert, Bachmann, etc etc etc. Sometimes you wrongfully get lumped with the company you don't seem to mind to be around. Other times it's a case to out Gohmert a Gohmert so you can get an applause line you have to say ridiculous things(such as Walker comparing terrorists to union people protesting). These Clown car conventions are basically comedy gold trying to find soundbites of candidates saying stupid things, then all of a sudden you lump a bunch of clips in a row of Gohmert, Palin, Legitimate candidate 1, Jindal, Trump, Legitimate Candidate 2, Santorum, Herman Cain, The Guy from Duck Dynasty, Some uber social conservative PAC leader, Ted Nugent the 2 legit candidates look terrible especially when the stuff coming out of there mouth is just as crazy as all the other crazies..

I think it's going to come down to who runs against Bush in the primaries. If Jeb ends up being the only establishment preferred candidate while the fringe candidates are numerous, I think he'll win. The reason why some of the Tea Party targets have survived simply comes down to there are far too many clowns in the clown car and they cannibalize themselves while the establishment candidate survives.

Another benefit that Jeb will have this time around is a changed attitude of the GOP establishment. With the 2010 and 2012, Tea Party candidates cost the GOP a lot of races that they should have won. If it weren't for the Tea Party, the GOP would have 5 guaranteed seats (Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Missouri, and Indiana). The GOP establishment had a policy not to get involved in the primaries and let it all sort itself out. It cost them pretty dearly. But 2014 was a different story. This time around the GOP worked to protect their establishment candidates like Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Pat Roberts while working to make sure that Tea Party candidates wouldn't ruin the chances of Pat Tillis, Shelly Moore Capito, Ed Gillespie, Bill Cassidy, Mike Rounds, and Cory Gardner. And a lot of establishment candidates prevailed in the House as well, with Eric Cantor being the only major exception (due to him being cocky).

I think the GOP establishment is going to work to try and make sure that Bush gets the nomination to present a candidate that is more palatable to the general public and isn't hurt by shifting more and more to the right like Mitt Romney had to do. They are going to work hard to discredit any looney candidate IMO without hoping that they implode upon themselves like they did in 2012 or rely on a Jon Huntsman type candidate to do the dirty work for them.

I think another factor to take into account is how many establishment GOP candidates run. If Bush can scare away George Pataki, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Scott Walker the way he did Mitt Romney. He should be fine. But the more establishment type candidates there are, the more they're going to take away votes that should be going to Bush. That said, I am personally expecting Rubio and Christie to be the next to announce that they will not be running in 2016.

 

[The Overlord]

I think a big problem is, a lot of Republicans have a rather selfish concept of rights and personal responsibility that make them seem unsympathetic. Not all Republicans mind you but certainly enough make the GOP seem unsympathetic.

Look at Cliven Bundy, who talks about grazing fees are unfair and then he goes around and says black people were better off as slaves. Do the open carry people do anything to fight against the militarization of the police and the heavy handed tactics the police use against minorities or do they just want the freedom to bring their guns where ever they want and could care less about other people's rights? Then there was Joe the Plumber who said dead kids don't trump his gun rights. Rush Limbaugh promotes harsh punishments for drug users and then when it was discovered he abused prescription drugs and he did not take personal responsibility for that.

And this applies to elected officials too, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld did not want to take personal responsibility for their failures in Iraq, instead blaming the liberal media for not painting a rosy enough picture of Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Personal Responsibility is a worthless concept if you only apply it other people and not yourself.

A selfish concept of rights does not lead to freedom, it leads to license for some and oppression for the rest. Many dictatorships give superior rights to some of their citizens over others.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Cracked had a really great article about how 2nd term Presidents. The history shows that there has only been one President who won the election with his party coming off a 2 term presidency. It's a really good read and also states that the heir apparent for the incumbant parties successor almost always loses.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-no-u.s.-president-should-want-second-term

But going on name recognition alone, I think if 2016 ends up being Hillary vs Jeb than most of the general population is going to remember that W completely screwed up the world (regardless of how true the statement is, many believe it) and things where pretty damn good under Bill Clinton (regardless of how many things he set in motion that ultimately hurt the USA). So that negative connotation that Jeb has from bearing the Bush name is going to be a big hurdle for him to overcome whereas Hillary doesn't have too much they can really make stick on her (even though there is stuff out there). But as the article above states history is not on Hillary's side regardless of how much she seems like a shoe-in right now

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think if Jeb runs the right way he can effectively distance himself from his brother. If he demonstrates that he's more like H.W. Bush over Dubya, I think that most people asides from hardcore Democrats will accept him. And honestly, I think he can beat Hillary. I just have a feeling that Hillary is going to be a terrible candidate.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Hillary Clinton is comically overrated.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I think if Jeb runs the right way he can effectively distance himself from his brother. If he demonstrates that he's more like H.W. Bush over Dubya, I think that most people asides from hardcore Democrats will accept him. And honestly, I think he can beat Hillary. I just have a feeling that Hillary is going to be a terrible candidate.

Well history is def against her, that's for sure

 

[hippie_hunter]

For some reason people think that when electing Hillary, they're going to get Bill.

 

[CaptainWagner]

For some reason people think that when electing Hillary, they're going to get Bill.

We'll he does get to be "co-president" this time around...

 

[Taarna]

The GOP needs to educate the middle class on their message. The middle class has been going backward under Obama.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Their message to let the rich get richer? Don't see how that's going to help the middle class

 

[SV Fan]

The GOP needs to educate the middle class on their message. The middle class has been going backward under Obama.

Yes everything was perfect until Obama took office and we only been going backwards since them(in other words I think you might want to look a bit farther back to when the Middle class started going backwards)

Their message to let the rich get richer? Don't see how that's going to help the middle class

You forget the other part of the message, that there is 2 types of people, the rich and the soon to be rich.

 

[Taarna]

Yes everything was perfect until Obama took office and we only been going backwards since them(in other words I think you might want to look a bit farther back to when the Middle class started going backwards)


You forget the other part of the message, that there is 2 types of people, the rich and the soon to be rich.

Not what's i'm saying. The middle class has gone backward under Obama. The rich have gotten richer. This is factual, and not up for debate. Why is a better question.

It is here the Rep's can educate the middle class

They are taxed too much for openers, and the Unions means far less in a global economy.

 

[SV Fan]

The rich have gotten richer.

The rich have been getting richer for a long time before Obama. So to blame Obama is sort of ridiculous

Looking at this chart it looks like trickle down economics is an utter failure, unless it's main goal was to get as much cash into the hands of the people at the top, then it was a huge success

 

[Taarna]

The rich have been getting richer for a long time before Obama. So to blame Obama is sort of ridiculous

Looking at this chart it looks like trickle down economics is an utter failure

I know. My point was not to blame Obama. My point is his message did not help the middle class. So why should another Democrat's?

If you have a full time job and struggle to make ends meet, I believe the more money in your hands, and the less in the government's the better. Tax the middle class a bit less, and educate them about more about how government is draining their pockets.

 

[SV Fan]

If you have a full time job and struggle to make ends meet, I believe the more money in your hands, and the less in the government's the better. Tax the middle class a bit less, and educate them about more about how government is draining their pockets.

The Middle class in the US was the strongest between 1940-1975, maybe it was a coincidence but the tax rates were much higher back then. The Republicans love painting a picture how life used to be great but it's all gone to hell recently but they seem to ignore the many ways Government stuck it nose to make sure things were great back then for alot of people after WW2(school was much cheaper since it was heavily subsidized by the government, in the 50s Ike invested tons of cash into infrastructure(when Obama said you didn't build that he was right, Ike did), etc.)

 

[Kelly]

Way to blow context and comparative judgment all to hell.

 

[SV Fan]

Way to blow context and comparative judgment all to hell.

So you don't think the higher taxes of the 40s and 50s that got heavily reinvested in infrastructure didn't help rise the middle class during those decades?

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

Republican senators warn Iran in open letter

Republican senators want to give Iranian leaders — and the president — a refresher on the constitutional balance of power.

In a highly unusual move, a group of 47 Republicans in the upper chamber has written to Iran’s top leaders to let them know that any nuclear deal they reach with the United States would be “nothing more than an executive agreement.”

Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) organized the letter, which features signatures from top Republican Senate leadership and potential presidential candidates such as Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

So basically they want to do everything possible to screw over this deal, then they will be the first to claim victory if and when the deal fails. I think this sets a pretty bad precedent to how the House and Senate deal with foreign policy issues in the future

 

[hippie_hunter]

So you don't think the higher taxes of the 40s and 50s that got heavily reinvested in infrastructure didn't help rise the middle class during those decades?

No one paid those tax rates. It is seriously the most ignorant, shallow talking point the Democrats have ever tried to make. If anything, the tax burden was far more on the middle class during the 1940's and 1950's than the rich.

 

[SV Fan]

No one paid those tax rates. It is seriously the most ignorant, shallow talking point the Democrats have ever tried to make. If anything, the tax burden was far more on the middle class during the 1940's and 1950's than the rich.

The burden was on the middle class because there was more of them. As for not paying the top tax rates, while I understand that, do you think that their isn't any loopholes now and people are paying the top rate now?

Just using Romney's taxes as an example, he basically paid 13% on like 20M(which is nowhere close to 39%), I am guessing if he was using 1950 tax rates(and taking inflation into consideration) I am guessing he would have paid more then 13% on that money(maybe nowhere close to 90% but way more then 13%)

 

[hippie_hunter]

The burden was on the middle class because there was more of them. As for not paying the top tax rates, while I understand that, do you think that their isn't any loopholes now and people are paying the top rate now?

The burden was on the middle class because the tax rates were higher for the middle class as well back then on top of the extremely generous loopholes that were given to the rich. While there are absurd loopholes today, they are not at all comparable to the loopholes in the past. While there was a tax rate of 91% for the top earners, the loopholes allowed them to manipulate the system to essentially pay at a rate that was on par or even lower than what the rich pay today. Meanwhile the middle class paid a higher rate back then as well, the endured more of the burden not because there was more of them, but because they actually paid a higher share because they didn't have the loopholes the rich were given. It was a shallow point that has almost no basis in the reality. Now the system has been reformed to where the middle class pay a lower rate and the rich pay a rate that is more accurate.

You also completely ignore how the global economy was in the 1940's and 1950's that benefited the American middle class and how it is dramatically different today. Thus making your point, even more shallow and ignorant.

Just using Romney's taxes as an example, he basically paid 13% on like 20M(which is nowhere close to 39%)

Because Romney's money doesn't come from traditional income sources.

 

[SV Fan]

Because Romney's money doesn't come from traditional income sources.

Simple question is would Romney benefit from a 1950 Tax system or not? Seems like he doing pretty well under the current system paying an effective rate of 13%. You are telling me how the 1950s tax rates seemed to give rich people sweetheart tax breaks I could argue the current system seems to give the wall street and investment types sweetheart breaks as well(ie as unlikely as it is to see somebody pay 90% back then, it's just as unlikely to see somebody pay the top rate now).

 

[hippie_hunter]

Simple question is would Romney benefit from a 1950 Tax system or not? Seems like he doing pretty well under the current system

You're side-stepping the issue that your point really has no basis from the reality of the 1950's. Romney probably would have benefited under the 1950's tax system as much as he does in today's tax code, if not more. While he has manipulated his income to reduce his 39.6% rate to 13%, he would have manipulated his 91% tax rate to the 20% rate that everyone paid in the 1950's.