Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[Hobgoblin]

Actually in that (incredibly implausible) scenario, the Democratic party would fracture. The only thing keeping the groups that make up the Democratic party together is the Republican Party.

The same is true for the Republican party.

The seperate factions in the Democratic party could well fracture due to infighting without a "common enemy" in the Republicans but how effective could they be alone? Green Party members should be Democrats but they are their own party, a very ineffective one at that.

Then again, I could see a religion based party if the Republicans split, as well as an anti-immigrant party, or a financial conservation party. Politics could be argued among parties with singular interests.

 

[Paradoxium]

I am willing to bet the Democratic Party will fracture if the Republicans are gone. This is why I want the Republicans gone for good.

 

[Paradoxium]

The main glue is Republican-hate, that's the real rally the flag. Take that flag away, then things get interesting. The Republican party getting nixed could be the best thing that can happen. All the insane crap to prevent a third party will finally be seen for what it is. This is my dream, to see the Republicans completely and utterly crushed.

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't get your obsessive desire for a one party country, but it's not going to happen, and it's a terrible idea anyway.

 

[Paradoxium]

Really who says it isn't a pseudo one party system? The Republicans are weak and demoralized right now. Now, is the opportunity to crush them.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: REPRESENTATIVE EMERSON TO LEAVE CONGRESS FOR CEO POSITION
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/03/missouri-rep-leaving-congress-in-february/

...she was overwhelmingly re-elected last month and decides to up and leave for a CEO position? Bad form.

 

[Kelly]

Really who says it isn't a pseudo one party system? The Republicans are weak and demoralized right now. Now, is the opportunity to crush them.

I don't think that is what makes it a one party system.

IMO, both are money grabbers, money spenders, power hungry groups that want to stay in power by promising anything and doing little.

I see very little difference in either party.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I am willing to bet the Democratic Party will fracture if the Republicans are gone. This is why I want the Republicans gone for good.

I don't see the Democrats fracturing without the Republicans. Unlike the GOP which is quite the splintered group, the Democrats are a pretty damn cohesive group where they are at the very least united in preserving New Deal progressive policies from both the progressive and conservative wings of the party.

The reality is that the Democrats are becoming more and more cohesive with the party becoming less of the big tent that it promotes itself to be and being more of an ironclad liberal party with the conservatives getting pushed out. Conservative Democrats becoming a dying wing of the party is essentially why they're practically a dead brand in the South.

 

[Thundercrack85]

...I'm not sure we're talking about the same political parties.

If anything, the Democratic Party now has a sizable centrist wing. Obama is a centrist. A lot of his policies are just Republican policies from not too long ago. Like healthcare.

The Republican Party has gone so far to the right, moderates have trouble keeping their seats.

 

[hippie_hunter]

...I'm not sure we're talking about the same political parties.

If anything, the Democratic Party now has a sizable centrist wing.

The centrist wing of the Democratic Party is dying. Look at Harry Reid, who was once one of the Senate's most prominent centrists, is now more and more left wing. The Senate Democrats are about to become more liberal with the induction of Senators such as Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. The centrist Democrats in the House are dropping like flies. And moderate Democrats are now either becoming independents or going to the Republican Party.

Even Bill Clinton is becoming more left-wing than he used to be.

Obama is a centrist. A lot of his policies are just Republican policies from not too long ago. Like healthcare.

Obama is no centrist. Bill Clinton was a centrist during his Presidency. Much of his policies enacted are more of a result of GOP and conservative Democrat opposition such as his weakened health care bill (where he used to promote universal health care and initially wanted a public option).

The Republican Party has gone so far to the right, moderates have trouble keeping their seats.

The GOP has certainly turned more right wing and the moderates are having troubles in that party as well. No doubt about that, just because I'm criticizing the Democrats for essentially ditching their "big tent" fold doesn't mean that the GOP is better than them. But the same thing is happening with the Democratic Party. The major difference though is that the GOP is far more fractured with vast differences on immigration, fiscal policy, social policy, etc. The Democrats are becoming more and more united thanks to conservative Democrats essentially leaving the party.

 

[SV Fan]

The centrist wing of the Democratic Party is dying. Look at Harry Reid, who was once one of the Senate's most prominent centrists, is now more and more left wing. The Senate Democrats are about to become more liberal with the induction of Senators such as Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. The centrist Democrats in the House are dropping like flies. And moderate Democrats are now either becoming independents or going to the Republican Party.

For every Warren, there is somebody like Donnelly in Indiana. Their is many Democrats in the House and Senate that would have absolutely no chance of winning if they weren't centrists. Those moderate Democrats also on many against vote against the party when it suits them(and on a whole the party and Democrats in general allow then to vote for what will make them look better in their district since they know that's what will make them win. In General the Democrat party is more open to people voting against the group then the Republicans)

 

[Smashlilman]

The centrist wing of the Democratic Party is dying. Look at Harry Reid, who was once one of the Senate's most prominent centrists, is now more and more left wing. The Senate Democrats are about to become more liberal with the induction of Senators such as Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. The centrist Democrats in the House are dropping like flies. And moderate Democrats are now either becoming independents or going to the Republican Party.

Even Bill Clinton is becoming more left-wing than he used to be.

Obama is no centrist. Bill Clinton was a centrist during his Presidency. Much of his policies enacted are more of a result of GOP and conservative Democrat opposition such as his weakened health care bill (where he used to promote universal health care and initially wanted a public option).

The GOP has certainly turned more right wing and the moderates are having troubles in that party as well. No doubt about that, just because I'm criticizing the Democrats for essentially ditching their "big tent" fold doesn't mean that the GOP is better than them. But the same thing is happening with the Democratic Party. The major difference though is that the GOP is far more fractured with vast differences on immigration, fiscal policy, social policy, etc. The Democrats are becoming more and more united thanks to conservative Democrats essentially leaving the party.

Really? The democratic party is mostly populated with a bunch of center left Democrats. The Liberal wing of the party doesn't do anything. They are constantly complain about being left out of everything. They end up going along with what ever the party is trying to do to win. Obama and Clinton both are/were pretty much moderate democrats. Clinton would push for left wing ideas and then compromise which would result in moderate legislation. Obama would take up liberal issue and use moderate republican ideas and solutions as a frame work to start from. The only problem is the Republican party as gone so far to the right that any and everything that Obama does ends up being classified as being extremely liberal. So they refuse to compromise even if they proposed those same plans a decade ago.

Actual Liberals are just sitting back ripping there hair out going wtf

 

[hippie_hunter]

Really? The democratic party is mostly populated with a bunch of center left Democrats. The Liberal wing of the party doesn't do anything. They are constantly complain about being left out of everything. They end up going along with what ever the party is trying to do to win. Obama and Clinton both are/were pretty much moderate democrats. Clinton would push for left wing ideas and then compromise which would result in moderate legislation. Obama would take up liberal issue and use moderate republican ideas and solutions as a frame work to start from. The only problem is the Republican party as gone so far to the right that any and everything that Obama does ends up being classified as being extremely liberal. So they refuse to compromise even if they proposed those same plans a decade ago.

Actual Liberals are just sitting back ripping there hair out going wtf

The extreme liberals are the exact same as the extreme conservatives of the GOP, they pull their hair out for their party not going far enough even though it is tilting more into their favor. Like I said, when he was President, Clinton was indeed a centrist, but Obama has never done anything like what you've said. Take health care reform for example, his initial proposal was a public option that would pave the way for universal health care, but opposition killed that and he was forced to take up a much more moderate position. He's always been against the GOP tax breaks and only relented again, simply because he had no choice.

 

[hippie_hunter]

For every Warren, there is somebody like Donnelly in Indiana. Their is many Democrats in the House and Senate that would have absolutely no chance of winning if they weren't centrists. Those moderate Democrats also on many against vote against the party when it suits them(and on a whole the party and Democrats in general allow then to vote for what will make them look better in their district since they know that's what will make them win. In General the Democrat party is more open to people voting against the group then the Republicans)

For every Joe Donnelly you have a Elizabeth Warren, Maize Hirono, and Tammy Baldwin. Add in the fact that Senators such as Donnelly and McCaskill only won because their opponents were ****ing ******ed enough to endorse pregnancy rape.

But 2014 is not looking good for moderate Democrats, which will further diminish their numbers.

 

[Kelly]

For every Joe Donnelly you have a Elizabeth Warren, Maize Hirono, and Tammy Baldwin. Add in the fact that Senators such as Donnelly and McCaskill only won because their opponents were ****ing ******ed enough to endorse pregnancy rape.

But 2014 is not looking good for moderate Democrats, which will further diminish their numbers.

Yep, McCaskill was totally thrown under the bus by the DNC, was given very little money for her campaign, she was left for the wolves, and she came out the winner. Sad that people like her are not the ones that the Democrats should be celebrating, she is one of the few that can get anything done with the Republicans.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yep, McCaskill was totally thrown under the bus by the DNC, was given very little money for her campaign, she was left for the wolves, and she came out the winner. Sad that people like her are not the ones that the Democrats should be celebrating, she is one of the few that can get anything done with the Republicans.

You can't blame the DNC for throwing McCaskill under the bus. Until Akin made his incredibly vile comments, she was guaranteed to lose her seat. She just has an awful personality, she represents a state that is turning more Republican, and Obama was on the ballot in a state where he was unpopular. You can't fault the Democrats for not wanting to invest money where they were unlikely to get any returns. When it comes to things like campaigns, it's not about ideology, it's about winning.

 

[SV Fan]

Yep, McCaskill was totally thrown under the bus by the DNC, was given very little money for her campaign, she was left for the wolves, and she came out the winner. Sad that people like her are not the ones that the Democrats should be celebrating, she is one of the few that can get anything done with the Republicans.

Speaking of McCaskill, I love this ad she ran during the Republican Senate primary "against" Akin

[YT]ec4t_3vaBMc[/YT]

Sort of screams, hey Tea Party people this is your guy. lol

For every Joe Donnelly you have a Elizabeth Warren, Maize Hirono, and Tammy Baldwin. Add in the fact that Senators such as Donnelly and McCaskill only won because their opponents were ****ing ******ed enough to endorse pregnancy rape.

What about Kaine in Virginia or Heitkamp in North Dakota, no chance they win unless they centrists and go against some of the stances of the party. As for Maize Hirono, you are talking about a state that generally votes Democrats at 65-70, so yeah chances are they will vote a person who is a far leftie

 

[hippie_hunter]

Speaking of McCaskill, I love this ad she ran during the Republican Senate primary "against" Akin

[YT]ec4t_3vaBMc[/YT]

Sort of screams, hey Tea Party people this is your guy. lol

I feel so mixed about that ad. On one hand, it repulses me because it shows that McCaskill played dirty and she manipulated a bunch of idiot Republicans into voting for Akin. On the other hand, I love it because it is just so brilliant strategically and that she manipulated a bunch of stupid people.

 

[SV Fan]

I feel so mixed about that ad. On one hand, it repulses me because it shows that McCaskill played dirty and she manipulated a bunch of idiot Republicans into voting for Akin. On the other hand, I love it because it is just so brilliant strategically and that she manipulated a bunch of stupid people.

From my understanding many pro Republican groups spent like 12M between 2011 and the summer of 2012 trashing McCaskill so somebody on her re-election team decided to spend 1.5M going "against" Akin during the Republican Senate Primary. Thing I love about that ad is the music. Normally negative ads have like death music, that one used sort of a upbeat but corny song. Whoever came up with that ad is a genius because it speaks to so many people in different ways(ie it comes off positive to primary voters basically while it comes off negative to most other people)

 

[hippie_hunter]

Without a doubt that person is a genius. It manipulated the extreme right to rally behind the weakest candidate and then Akin went above and beyond the McCaskill Campaign's expectations of just how awful he was.

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...s9O8AQ?docId=d08cff4ba7db4260a565e94e6be4780f


Republican opposition downs UN disability treaty

WASHINGTON (AP) — Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled that is modeled after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

With 38 Republicans casting “no” votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

 

[Lighthouse]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...s9O8AQ?docId=d08cff4ba7db4260a565e94e6be4780f


Republican opposition downs UN disability treaty

WASHINGTON (AP) — Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled that is modeled after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

With 38 Republicans casting “no” votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

How unsurprising.

 

[Kelly]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...s9O8AQ?docId=d08cff4ba7db4260a565e94e6be4780f


Republican opposition downs UN disability treaty

WASHINGTON (AP) — Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled that is modeled after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

With 38 Republicans casting “no” votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

If we already have this as a law, why would we need to sign the UN treaty....?????? I don't get it...

I would like to read the treaty and the regulations before crucifying the Republicans yet again, for simply saying no, that honestly I'm doubtful any of us actually know what they said no to......I'm all for slamming when a party needs to be slammed, but what does the treaty say? I would like to see that posted first.

 

[The Overlord]

If we already have this as a law, why would we need to sign the UN treaty....?????? I don't get it...

I would like to read the treaty and the regulations before crucifying the Republicans yet again, for simply saying no, that honestly I'm doubtful any of us actually know what they said no to......I'm all for slamming when a party needs to be slammed, but what does the treaty say? I would like to see that posted first.

If the US doesn't sign a treaty that protects the rights of the disabled, then how can the US claim to be a moral leader? This isn't about the US domestic policy, its about promoting the rights of the disabled internationally. Where does it say that this treaty will override US law? Germany, France, the UK and many other countries signed this treaty, are we to assume that those countries don't care about their sovereignty or does it mean the GOP have concerns that are based on unfounded paranoia?

 

[SV Fan]

If the US doesn't sign a treaty that protects the rights of the disabled, then how can the US claim to be a moral leader? This isn't about the US domestic policy, its about promoting the rights of the disabled internationally. Where does it say that this treaty will override US law? Germany, France, the UK and many other countries signed this treaty, are we to assume that those countries don't care about their sovereignty or does it mean the GOP have concerns that are based on unfounded paranoia?

I don't think the concerns are unfounded, all the senators who voted no have fears that they will lose in primaries and that is a possibility if they vote yes on this. lol

One thing I don't get is you think of the benefits of this treaty to the US, it would be a boon to companies that manufacture ramps or wheelchairs or artificial limbs, etc. You think the fear of pissing off business would be a bigger scare then the far right crowd who fears the UN will come in and take your disabled kid.