Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[wiegeabo]

It baffles the mind how complacant everyone has become towards our government. As long as the government has some bigger "monster" (hitler, russia, terrorism) out their to parade in front of the american people they just set back and let the government do whatever it wants. I really believe that is part of the governments power. Its like "Don't question us. We are protecting you from the evil." And it seems to be working, but in the words of Benjamin Franklin:


And the more paraphrased version, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Add the media to that. People don't want news anymore. They just want gossip about celebrities and psuedo-celebrities.

WHO. GIVES. A. ****?!?!

The only reason they're famous is because they say their famous and people watch them. Used to be you had to actually DO something to earn celebrity status. Now you just have to act like an idiot/jerk/airhead/punchline.


Combine that with the media churning out rampant speculation and calling it news because it's the only way to fill up an unnecessary 24-hour news cycle.

 

[Paradoxium]

Nothing, except I don't believe that the corporations who did all those things in the first place will not want to stop it and they will look for every loophole to game the system again. No one learned any sort of lesson from Enron, why would anyone learn anything from the last crisis? Some of those CEOs are so greedy and arrogant they think they are above the rules and I don't think that will change anytime soon, otherwise people would have stopped doing it after Enron.

Plus you seem be ignoring the fact that corporations affiliated with the industrial military complex have no interest in a smaller government, they would lose their biggest customer if the government got smaller, so its in their interest to have a bigger government. That's why I don't believe in the version of capitalism you believe in, it died with the creation of the industrial military complex, it is something people pay lip service to, rather then something those in power truly believe in. Both in the private and public sectors, corporatism will be the system that everyone worships, while capitalism will just be the thing that is payed lip service.

Again this comes down what you think greed is, is greed something that makes people rational or is it something that robs people of their rationality and makes them do reckless things? I believe it is the later, its why greed has been seen as a vice through out history, rather then a virtue. Having a system based around greed encourages the negative reckless behavior that is associated with greed.




Where did I try to do that? I just think you worrying about a mere symptom, while I am looking at the disease that created it in the first place. Corporatism is far more powerful and perversive then you seem to think and its a bigger problem then just leverage, that is just the tip of the ice berg, corporatism has overtaken capitalism a long time ago and leverage is just the most extreme example of that.

I don't think you understand leverage. It can't exist without loose credit; every capitalist psychopath, scammer, lobbyuest and charlatan can't do this if it is cut off. It's government policy, the egg of the problem. They think they know how manage it. They don't and we are paying for the consequences of its excess.

I am referring to leverage for the most point. I am saying Mitt Romney doesn't really make companies better and sells them off for profit. Most of his hot potatoes were distressed. He buries these companies in debt and leverage and resells it to suckers. The successful ones, were inspite of him.

Read this. Lehman was levered 30:1. These assclowns are doing 200:1.

Where is the regulation Obama promised? What is your solution?

I at least provided one, a simple one.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't think you understand leverage. It can't exist without loose credit; every capitalist psychopath, scammer, lobbyuest and charlatan can't do this if it is cut off. It's government policy, the egg of the problem. They think they know how manage it. They don't and we are paying for the consequences of its excess.

I am referring to leverage for the most point. I am saying Mitt Romney doesn't really make companies better and sells them off for profit. Most of his hot potatoes were distressed. He buries these companies in debt and leverage and resells it to suckers. The successful ones, were inspite of him.

Read this. Lehman was levered 30:1. These assclowns are doing 200:1.

Where is the regulation Obama promised? What is your solution?

I at least provided one, a simple one.

I know what you are talking about, but I think you are missing what I am talking about. You asked if I equated capitalism with corporatism and I said yes, because our system has far more common with corporatism then capitalism. Corporatism slew capitalism a long time ago, with the birth of the industrial military complex. So when you talk about leverage, you are talking about a symptom, not the disease that is the cause. See I am not even disagreeing with what you are saying, but I think you are missing the bigger picture here.

I have no solutions, if I did, I would be far less cynical. I don't have a lot of faith in Obama, I have less in Romney. I just happen to think Obama is the lesser of two evils and since I am cynic I think life is often a choice between two evils. Your solution will not implemented, there is no political will to implement it, so it will not happen. Too many corporations want to continue with these leverage games and the politicians have no will to change things. I mean, hey, I have a solution to the Middle East conflict, but neither side has the desire to compromise, so it won't happen.

 

[Marx]

...after last night's loss, do you think the republicans will finally take a look inward? Or will they continue pointing fingers at everyone else for the loss?

 

[Sebastos]

They have no choice but to look inward.

 

[DChero]

What has to be realized is that overall, our "ticket" system is broken. The theme of this election was choosing "the lesser of two evils." Most voters are closer to each other than what their parties represent. Not all Republicans are rich snobs and not all Democrats are too lazy to work. Unfortunately, that's how they perceive each other.

My solution would be to adjust the nomination funding structure to allow for three automatic candidates. This would put more pressure on compromise instead of representing two extremes. I'd feel better choosing between three "evils" than two.

 

[Superman]

...after last night's loss, do you think the republicans will finally take a look inward? Or will they continue pointing fingers at everyone else for the loss?

I expect them to do the same crap they have been doing the last 4 years. Blame anyone and everyone and everything for the loss and then they will use the filibuster to stop everything and blame Obama and the Dems for nothing getting done.

In others words the same crap they always do.

 

[Raiden]

...after last night's loss, do you think the republicans will finally take a look inward? Or will they continue pointing fingers at everyone else for the loss?

They'll probably use the popular votes as a sign that they don't need a lot of tinkering, just a true conservative as candidate to help them go over the hump.

 

[Kelly]

Well, this is how I look at it...

Now, Obama will own this economy, good or bad, positive or negative, he will now totally own it. Good luck Mr. President... : )

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Well, this is how I look at it...

Now, Obama will own this economy, good or bad, positive or negative, he will now totally own it. Good luck Mr. President... : )

If it's bad, he will most certainly not own it.

 

[Anita18]

They'll probably use the popular votes as a sign that they don't need a lot of tinkering, just a true conservative as candidate to help them go over the hump.

Do they honestly think the true conservatives went out to vote for OBAMA? Or that they stayed home because they had a hissy fit about Romney not being a true conservative, letting the progressive win?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The Republican Party needs to learn the same lesson the comic book industry needs to learn... trying to appeal primarily to white men is not going to give you a future.

 

[wiegeabo]

The Republican Party needs to learn the same lesson the comic book industry needs to learn... trying to appeal primarily to white men is not going to give you a future.

Especially since white will soon be a minority.

Of course, that will probably just scare the **** out of them and make them dig in their heels more.

 

[Downhere]

I expect them to do the same crap they have been doing the last 4 years. Blame anyone and everyone and everything for the loss and then they will use the filibuster to stop everything and blame Obama and the Dems for nothing getting done.

In others words the same crap they always do.

Both sides blame the other, there is no bipartisanship between these two parties and I honestly don't believe either side will work with the other as both are stubborn.

 

[SuperT]

They'll probably use the popular votes as a sign that they don't need a lot of tinkering, just a true conservative as candidate to help them go over the hump.

I saw this exact thing from conservatives across the net and on TV. They thought they lost because Romney wasn't conservative enough! Holy jeez, they just don't get it.

The US is at a point where we are on the way to movng far behind rich, white men being the dominant party. In just a couple years, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc. together are going to be the majority. The Republican party needs a MASSIVE overhaul!

They need to stop pandering to those Tea Party & evangelical lunatics and quit shutting out minorities, women, young Americans, and LGBT citizens from major political issues or they won't have a chance at winning any time soon.

I'm a Democrat and I know my party isn't the shining beacon of perfection but they have consistenly outperformed Republicans in adapting to the changing demographic makeup of the United States. If they truly worked out the kinks in their party while Republicans continue to lag behind, they could dominate the political landscape.

 

[Arc-Light]

Well, this is how I look at it...

Now, Obama will own this economy, good or bad, positive or negative, he will now totally own it. Good luck Mr. President... : )

The question is will the Republicans work with him or keep log jamming....

 

[Excel]

If it's bad, he will most certainly not own it.

It will not be up to him. I think most people are in agreement he will get the blame if bad, or the credit if good.

 

[DACrowe]

...after last night's loss, do you think the republicans will finally take a look inward? Or will they continue pointing fingers at everyone else for the loss?

They will. The major question is what they will see?

If they are honest (heh), they will see that the far right fringe they cow-towed to the last 4 years is not their path back to power anywhere beyond the House of Representatives in a midterm year (which actually should last at least 10-12 years now thanks to the gerrymandering post-2010). But in statewide races, and particularly national presidential races, it is becoming more and more of a liability to pander to and be the party of angry, aging white men who are also at least partially racist.

It is a losing strategy. So is, to my relief, choosing to opportunistically refuse to govern in the cynical hope that it will prevent the other party from winning the White House in four years. That has been rejected. They should not blame Romney losing for being too moderate, but for only shamelessly portraying himself as a moderate in the final 30 days of the election. Prior to that he marketed himself as a severe conservative, so convincingly he won the nomination despite the reservations of the newly entitled Tea Party faction and to the point where I certainly didn't trust him as the more reasonable man who was elected governor of Massachusetts.

However, I am fully prepared for them to see but one image--that of an aggrieved victim (listen to O'Reilly last night) and one who is perhaps not conservative enough (listen to Limbaugh, Trump, etc.). The future of the party should be candidates like Daniels (though he'll never run) and Huntsman and Christie. Not Ryan and Rubio and Rand Paul. It is up for the GOP to pick that direction, but if they choose cynicism we are all in trouble. Because in less than a few months if we do not begin to seriously get our fiscal house in order our credit rating will be lowered again. That is unacceptable. Hopefully, responsibility and maturity will return to the Party of Lincoln.

But I doubt it.

 

[Kelly]

The question is will the Republicans work with him or keep log jamming....

Well yeah, we gotta keep that in play so that he won't be blamed for anything this 4 years either....so of course, keep asking that question...

 

[Dr. Evil]

...after last night's loss, do you think the republicans will finally take a look inward? Or will they continue pointing fingers at everyone else for the loss?

They need to make changes inward. They must reach a goal for 2016: to split the Latino vote in half at the next Presidential election. That's probably not going to happen, which will mean another Clinton in the White House (or Biden).

 

[Kelly]

They need to make changes inward. They must reach a goal for 2016: to split the Latino vote in half at the next Presidential election. That's probably not going to happen, which will mean another Clinton in the White House (or Biden).

I really liked Biden as a Senator, and he has been entertaining as a VP, but I do not believe for one second he would be voted in as President.

 

[stillanerd]

I saw this exact thing from conservatives across the net and on TV. They thought they lost because Romney wasn't conservative enough! Holy jeez, they just don't get it.

The US is at a point where we are on the way to movng far behind rich, white men being the dominant party. In just a couple years, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc. together are going to be the majority. The Republican party needs a MASSIVE overhaul!

They need to stop pandering to those Tea Party & evangelical lunatics and quit shutting out minorities, women, young Americans, and LGBT citizens from major political issues or they won't have a chance at winning any time soon.

I'm a Democrat and I know my party isn't the shining beacon of perfection but they have consistenly outperformed Republicans in adapting to the changing demographic makeup of the United States. If they truly worked out the kinks in their party while Republicans continue to lag behind, they could dominate the political landscape.

They will. The major question is what they will see?

If they are honest (heh), they will see that the far right fringe they cow-towed to the last 4 years is not their path back to power anywhere beyond the House of Representatives in a midterm year (which actually should last at least 10-12 years now thanks to the gerrymandering post-2010). But in statewide races, and particularly national presidential races, it is becoming more and more of a liability to pander to and be the party of angry, aging white men who are also at least partially racist.

It is a losing strategy. So is, to my relief, choosing to opportunistically refuse to govern in the cynical hope that it will prevent the other party from winning the White House in four years. That has been rejected. They should not blame Romney losing for being too moderate, but for only shamelessly portraying himself as a moderate in the final 30 days of the election. Prior to that he marketed himself as a severe conservative, so convincingly he won the nomination despite the reservations of the newly entitled Tea Party faction and to the point where I certainly didn't trust him as the more reasonable man who was elected governor of Massachusetts.

However, I am fully prepared for them to see but one image--that of an aggrieved victim (listen to O'Reilly last night) and one who is perhaps not conservative enough (listen to Limbaugh, Trump, etc.). The future of the party should be candidates like Daniels (though he'll never run) and Huntsman and Christie. Not Ryan and Rubio and Rand Paul. It is up for the GOP to pick that direction, but if they choose cynicism we are all in trouble. Because in less than a few months if we do not begin to seriously get our fiscal house in order our credit rating will be lowered again. That is unacceptable. Hopefully, responsibility and maturity will return to the Party of Lincoln.

But I doubt it.

Let's not forget, though, that Mitt Romney, when he was Governor of Massachusetts, leaned more towards the Left on social issues and was responsible for his state wide Health Care Reform, which President Obama modeled his own Health Care Reform on. This was something candidates in the Republican Primary tried to point out, saying that Mitt Romney was essentially a political opportunist and a "flip-flopper," a label which stuck to Romney all throughout the campaign. Furthermore, I believe it was Newt Gingrich who first brought up Romney's connection with Bain Capital, saying he and that company practiced "vulture capitalism." Once Romney got the nomination, the Obama Campaign latched onto that and, again, Romney couldn't shake it.

So not only did the American public see Romney as "the rich white Wall Street businessman"--just like the same "rich white Wall Street businessman" which people blame for getting the United States into the Economic Mess it's currently in--but they also saw him as a "phony," a guy who was willing to say whatever his audience wanted to hear in order to get elected. And nobody likes a phony, no matter what side of the political isle they are on.

And that's basically the point: Mitt Romney and the Republicans unwillingly allowed themselves to be defined by the Democrats instead of making a genuine case why people should vote for them or why their ideas were better than what Obama and the Democrats offered. And when the Republicans put up a guy who even his own party during the primary labeled as a "political flip-flopping opportunist" and "vulture capitalist in bed with Wall Street bankers," it was, in hindsight, next to impossible to dispel this.

And here's a question to consider: if the Republicans do decide to move more towards the center and be less conservative on certain issues, why wouldn't people still vote for the Democrat candidate over the Republican one? Wouldn't they just see the Republican who pandered more toward the Left as a phony who just abandoned their own principles in order to get elected?

 

[Kelly]

Let's not forget, though, that Mitt Romney, when he was Governor of Massachusetts, leaned more towards the Left on social issues and was responsible for his state wide Health Care Reform, which President Obama modeled his own Health Care Reform on. This was something candidates in the Republican Primary tried to point out, saying that Mitt Romney was essentially a political opportunist and a "flip-flopper," a label which stuck to Romney all throughout the campaign. Furthermore, I believe it was Newt Gingrich who first brought up Romney's connection with Bain Capital, saying he and that company practiced "vulture capitalism." Once Romney got the nomination, the Obama Campaign latched onto that and, again, Romney couldn't shake it.

So not only did the American public see Romney as "the rich white Wall Street businessman"--just like the same "rich white Wall Street businessman" which people blame for getting the United States into the Economic Mess it's currently in--but they also saw him as a "phony," a guy who was willing to say whatever his audience wanted to hear in order to get elected. And nobody likes a phony, no matter what side of the political isle they are on.

And that's basically the point: Mitt Romney and the Republicans unwillingly allowed themselves to be defined by the Democrats instead of making a genuine case why people should vote for them or why their ideas were better than what Obama and the Democrats offered. And when the Republicans put up a guy who even his own party during the primary labeled as a "political flip-flopping opportunist" and "vulture capitalist in bed with Wall Street bankers," it was, in hindsight, next to impossible to dispel this.

And here's a question to consider: if the Republicans do decide to move more towards the center and be less conservative on certain issues, why wouldn't people still vote for the Democrat candidate over the Republican one? Wouldn't they just see the Republican who pandered more toward the Left as a phony who just abandoned their own principles in order to get elected?

Oh hell yes, and Gingrich was their 12th man on the field.....

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's a certain irony here.

A lot of Republicans (hopefully not all) now claim they lost because Romney was a New England RINO.

Somehow I don't think that's why the vast majority of Latinos voted for Obama in record numbers.

 

[Thor The Mighty]

The Republican party platform for 2012 was far too extreme for the electorate.