Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

Do you think the Republican Party needs to evolve and become more inclusive?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure

  • Yes

  • No

  • I'm not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And you think having a woman in the White House would have been an improvement for them? :funny:

That's the way I look at it. Just because she's a woman would have been enough reason to give her a hard time, whether they were actually concscious of that or not.
 
Then it quickly got hijacked by Glen Beck, birthers and people who in all reality are social conservatives who think the tea party thing was cool but in all reality could care less about fiscal conservatism
Agreed :o
 
I do think Hillary would fair better. I'm just not saying how much better given the sentiments of the current GOP.
Hillary would have faired much, much better. Simple things like building personal relationships and knowing how to be a politician go quite a long way. It's easier to form compromises and deals with people that you like (Hillary) as opposed to someone who you don't like (Obama). Hillary Clinton is basically the complete opposite of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has actually worked with Republicans, while Barack Obama has only done so because he's forced to and while he's at it tells them to eat their peas and spent the first two years of his Administration with the attitude of "**** 'em, we have the votes anyways." Hillary Clinton has actually formed friendships with Republicans like John McCain, while Barack Obama doesn't even talk to members of his own party. Hillary Clinton knows how to fight, while Barack Obama degrades himself to fighting Fox News. Hillary Clinton has decades of political experience, Barack Obama was just simply a state senator who skyrocketed to the national arena and his inexperience in that stage caught him off guard. And to top it off, Hillary Clinton is overall a center-left political figure (she used to be a Republican) while Barack Obama is a full blown progressive.

Add in all those factors, yeah, she would have done much better. While I certainly agree that the GOP's behavior towards Obama has been rather inexcusable, you also have to take into account that a lot of it was Obama's own doing. You're not going to get a lot done when you consistently antagonize the opposition and don't know how to negotiate.
 
I don't know. Granted, right-wingers always get up in arms when there's a Democrat in the White House, but their hatred for Obama, is unusually strong, given what a centrist he is. Just compare him to Clinton.

There's something about Obama that's different, that they really can't stand.

And I don't think it's the fact that he's left handed.
Because he isn't a centrist, consistently antagonizes them, and doesn't know how to work with them. Obama's the guy who just keeps poking the sleeping bear.
 
He's probably going to run for governor. It'll be a lot easier for him to win it and will be easier on his life as well.
 
He's probably going to run for governor. It'll be a lot easier for him to win it and will be easier on his life as well.

My guess is running for Senator is a lose lose scenario for Brown's dream of being Governor.

If he loses in the run off, he comes off like a 2 time loser(I think alot of people will give him a pass to losing to liberal sweetheart Warren by a respectable margin in Mass. for the first loss, a second loss though will have stigma). If he wins he has to go to the Senate and they will use alot of his votes against him when he does run for Governor.
 
Hillary would have faired much, much better. Simple things like building personal relationships and knowing how to be a politician go quite a long way. It's easier to form compromises and deals with people that you like (Hillary) as opposed to someone who you don't like (Obama). Hillary Clinton is basically the complete opposite of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has actually worked with Republicans, while Barack Obama has only done so because he's forced to and while he's at it tells them to eat their peas and spent the first two years of his Administration with the attitude of "**** 'em, we have the votes anyways." Hillary Clinton has actually formed friendships with Republicans like John McCain, while Barack Obama doesn't even talk to members of his own party. Hillary Clinton knows how to fight, while Barack Obama degrades himself to fighting Fox News. Hillary Clinton has decades of political experience, Barack Obama was just simply a state senator who skyrocketed to the national arena and his inexperience in that stage caught him off guard. And to top it off, Hillary Clinton is overall a center-left political figure (she used to be a Republican) while Barack Obama is a full blown progressive.

Add in all those factors, yeah, she would have done much better. While I certainly agree that the GOP's behavior towards Obama has been rather inexcusable, you also have to take into account that a lot of it was Obama's own doing. You're not going to get a lot done when you consistently antagonize the opposition and don't know how to negotiate.

...you don't have to sell me on Hillary Clinton. I am a big Clinton supporter and campaigned for her in 2008. :yay:

As far as "being a full blown progressive" goes, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's high time that this country moved into the 21st century.
 
...you don't have to sell me on Hillary Clinton. I am a big Clinton supporter and campaigned for her in 2008. :yay:

As far as "being a full blown progressive" goes, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's high time that this country moved into the 21st century.
Ideology and practicality are two different things though. I'm a full blown libertarian, but if I tried governing with that style I wouldn't get a whole lot done. While it's all good to be a full blown progressive in your heart, the fact of the matter is that acting upon it as well isn't going to make it easy to work with when most of Congress is either conservative or moderate. A centrist would get far more done than anyone on the far left or far right would.
 
Hillary Clinton has decades of political experience

I'm not sure if being a football player's wife should let you get drafted into the NFL as a starting QB.

I very much doubt if hilary would have been embraced by repubs any more than president obama especially if you figure in the rise of the teabaggers and the sudden need to be super rightwing or lose your job on every issue.
 
I'm not sure if being a football player's wife should let you get drafted into the NFL as a starting QB.

I very much doubt if hilary would have been embraced by repubs any more than president obama especially if you figure in the rise of the teabaggers and the sudden need to be super rightwing or lose your job on every issue.

I got a kick out of this....... Because REALLY, THE FIRST STATEMENT cracked me up..... when a person with as little experience as Obama has now been elected 2x. ??? If Hillary had been the "waterboy" on the football she would have more experience than Obama had when he was elected. (I think I get pissed off about this sort of thing because I fell for it in 2008) His senate record can't even match up to hers in any way, yet they were a part of the senate for pretty much the same amount of time. Hell, that ALONE makes/made her more ready for the Presidency in 2008 than Obama.

But, in the end and hindsight...I do not think for one minute that she would have been stupid enough to have minimized the need to work with Republicans like Obama did....he did it in his demeanor with them face to face in committees, he did it/ and still does it in EVERY SPEECH HE MAKES, he did it/ and still does it in every press conference he does...and every interview he does. It would not matter how much I wanted to work with this man to get something done, I would find it hard to want him in the same room with me if I were on the opposite side of the aisle from him.

I do not for one moment, think that Hillary would have been THAT kind of President.

Now, OF COURSE, all of this is speculation because she didn't win.....but I do not think (and I sure as hell hope) that we NEVER see this kind of divisive President every again in my lifetime and on.....

Has nothing to do with ideology ( I actually agree with quite a few things he has done) and said, and yes the Republicans ended up being JUST AS DiVISIVE, but when treated in that manner from day one, kind of hard not to be.

Do I think Clinton would have run her Presidency the same way....no I do not for one second think that....
 
I got a kick out of this....... Because REALLY, THE FIRST STATEMENT cracked me up..... when a person with as little experience as Obama has now been elected 2x. ??? If Hillary had been the "waterboy" on the football she would have more experience than Obama had when he was elected. (I think I get pissed off about this sort of thing because I fell for it in 2008) His senate record can't even match up to hers in any way, yet they were a part of the senate for pretty much the same amount of time. Hell, that ALONE makes/made her more ready for the Presidency in 2008 than Obama.

But, in the end and hindsight...I do not think for one minute that she would have been stupid enough to have minimized the need to work with Republicans like Obama did....he did it in his demeanor with them face to face in committees, he did it/ and still does it in EVERY SPEECH HE MAKES, he did it/ and still does it in every press conference he does...and every interview he does. It would not matter how much I wanted to work with this man to get something done, I would find it hard to want him in the same room with me if I were on the opposite side of the aisle from him.

I do not for one moment, think that Hillary would have been THAT kind of President.

Now, OF COURSE, all of this is speculation because she didn't win.....but I do not think (and I sure as hell hope) that we NEVER see this kind of divisive President every again in my lifetime and on.....

Has nothing to do with ideology ( I actually agree with quite a few things he has done) and said, and yes the Republicans ended up being JUST AS DiVISIVE, but when treated in that manner from day one, kind of hard not to be.

Do I think Clinton would have run her Presidency the same way....no I do not for one second think that....

I was saying clinton has had about as much actual experience as the president. Not decades. Hilary had one actual thing before she was elected, pres. clinton let her work over health care, that failed abysmally. I'm sorry I'm dating a psychologist. I've learned plenty from her on how the human mind works but until I actually became one and went through the training my time dating her doesn't count as practice. It just doesn't and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

I'll dispute your ready for the presidency thing completely. Here's why, clinton lies and lies a lot. She lied about being under fire when it turned out all the action she received was a little girl gave her a flower. She's never taken back that under fire nonsense. I preferred obama (who certainly also has lied) because I've actually seen him admit he messed up and made bad decisions. I've never heard either clinton do that. Any leader that can't say they've made a mistake is piss poor. And I felt personally insulted as someone that has been under fire for anyone to lie about that (when they were on camera at the time) then just pretend they never said anything.

I think you're missing the bigger picture in terms of history. The teabaggers rose. Actual republicans that had common sense and that I liked were being voted out of office because they refused to do things like pledge they would never work with a democrat on anything. All the smiles and kind demeanor in the world wasn't going to get a republican to side or work with any dem with that going on.

As for the rest of what you said.... I disagree.
 
I was saying clinton has had about as much actual experience as the president. Not decades. Hilary had one actual thing before she was elected, pres. clinton let her work over health care, that failed abysmally. I'm sorry I'm dating a psychologist. I've learned plenty from her on how the human mind works but until I actually became one and went through the training my time dating her doesn't count as practice. It just doesn't and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

I'll dispute your ready for the presidency thing completely. Here's why, clinton lies and lies a lot. She lied about being under fire when it turned out all the action she received was a little girl gave her a flower. She's never taken back that under fire nonsense. I preferred obama (who certainly also has lied) because I've actually seen him admit he messed up and made bad decisions. I've never heard either clinton do that. Any leader that can't say they've made a mistake is piss poor. And I felt personally insulted as someone that has been under fire for anyone to lie about that (when they were on camera at the time) then just pretend they never said anything.

I think you're missing the bigger picture in terms of history. The teabaggers rose. Actual republicans that had common sense and that I liked were being voted out of office because they refused to do things like pledge they would never work with a democrat on anything. All the smiles and kind demeanor in the world wasn't going to get a republican to side or work with any dem with that going on.

As for the rest of what you said.... I disagree.

It's cool that you disagree...no problem there. But what I put in bold. What are teabaggers? Those that are a part of the Tea Party Movement? is teabagger just easier to type because you are lazy and don't want to type out members of the Tea Party Movement???? or you just totally disrespect people that believe differently than you do so you call them derrogatory terms???:huh: The rest of that statement is just ridiculous, nothing to even try and discuss... pledge to "never work with a democrat" what????? There was a pledge to "not raise taxes" which IMO, is a pretty silly pledge, but nothing like what you just stated.

And as far as Clinton lies and lies a lot.....here's a clue, they all do....even the one who some call the messiah. :dry: Hell, even came up with this law.... Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 lmao, that is hysterical right there. Talk about a lie, make it law, and THEN IN TWO YEARS, make it one of the pillars of your campaign. NOW THAT IS A LIE....lol
 
Last edited:
It's cool that you disagree...no problem there. But what I put in bold. What are teabaggers? Those that are a part of the Tea Party Movement? is teabagger just easier to type because you are lazy and don't want to type out members of the Tea Party Movement???? or you just totally disrespect people that believe differently than you do so you call them derrogatory terms???:huh: The rest of that statement is just ridiculous, nothing to even try and discuss... pledge to "never work with a democrat" what????? There was a pledge to "not raise taxes" which IMO, is a pretty silly pledge, but nothing like what you just stated.

And as far as Clinton lies and lies a lot.....here's a clue, they all do....even the one who some call the messiah. :dry: Hell, even came up with this law.... Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 lmao, that is hysterical right there. Talk about a lie, make it law, and THEN IN TWO YEARS, make it one of the pillars of your campaign. NOW THAT IS A LIE....lol

No, teabagger is how I think of them because of the teabags when they first came out. It also amuses me. I'm aware of their real name, I just refuse to call them that. Kinda the same way I call the occupy movement stupid hippies.

I disrespect the movement because they were ok marching next to people with racial slurs on large billboards. I actually completely believe and agree with their ideals (most at least, their immigration thoughts are quite insane) if they actually stood for them, but they don't, they corrupt those virtues and thoughts into something akin to hate speech. So yes, they deserve my condensation and derision completely and I'll reserve the right to insult them because they deserve the insults, hell they've earned them.

Actually if you watched some of the teabag elections they won based on campaigns worked on the premise "this person isn't a real republican because they worked with a democrat on a bill and if you elect me I never will".

But yes, the tax pledge is a silly one, though almost all republicans have signed it. Which shows you the power of a ridiculous fundamentalist (although not actually fundamental to what a republican really should be about) structure that's present there.

I believe I said they all do, or at least that the president has. I believe my point was clinton has never said she's made a mistake publicly on anything. Even when caught redhanded in a lie by people that were there, she stuck with her lie and bill backed her up on that. I don't think anyone will be truly honest but if you can't say you've made a mistake you shouldn't be a shift manager at a dunkin donuts.
 
Personally I liked referring to the tea party as " the Tea Party™". The trademark symbols shows how the movement has been corrupted by corporate and other groups interests that have absolutely nothing to do with what the original movement intended.
 
I don't really care what they want to be called. It's the religious right. They can call themselves whatever they want, but at the end of the day it's the exact same people.

Now I won't call them "teabaggers", because, well that's just immature name-calling.
 
No, teabagger is how I think of them because of the teabags when they first came out. It also amuses me. I'm aware of their real name, I just refuse to call them that. Kinda the same way I call the occupy movement stupid hippies.

I disrespect the movement because they were ok marching next to people with racial slurs on large billboards. I actually completely believe and agree with their ideals (most at least, their immigration thoughts are quite insane) if they actually stood for them, but they don't, they corrupt those virtues and thoughts into something akin to hate speech. So yes, they deserve my condensation and derision completely and I'll reserve the right to insult them because they deserve the insults, hell they've earned them.

Actually if you watched some of the teabag elections they won based on campaigns worked on the premise "this person isn't a real republican because they worked with a democrat on a bill and if you elect me I never will".

But yes, the tax pledge is a silly one, though almost all republicans have signed it. Which shows you the power of a ridiculous fundamentalist (although not actually fundamental to what a republican really should be about) structure that's present there.

I believe I said they all do, or at least that the president has. I believe my point was clinton has never said she's made a mistake publicly on anything. Even when caught redhanded in a lie by people that were there, she stuck with her lie and bill backed her up on that. I don't think anyone will be truly honest but if you can't say you've made a mistake you shouldn't be a shift manager at a dunkin donuts.


Alright, I'll go with that....:yay:
 
Personally, I don't think much of what Rove does matters anymore. He's in that group that appeals to one demographic, who still uses antiquated tactics that now have the opposite desired effect on voters. Given how much money he was trusted with, and how little return he got, I doubt many others are paying him much attention either. The NRA, Tea Party, and Rove all joined that 2012 alumni, IMO.

As for the article, I have mixed feelings. On one hand anything is better than the last round of Republican contenders. If you can weed out the guys who make absurd rape comments, and bring in more centerest appealing Republicans, then more power to you. The other half of me realizes nothing is ever that straight forward with guys like Rove. I'm not entirely comfortable with Rove hand picking a candidate for President again. He has a talent for having candidates smooth talk the populace, but have every intention of towing the party line, aka a puppet. I guess I'd just say I hope anyone that group puts forward gets vetted, and people take a good look at their career, and record (which you should with any candidate to be honest).
 
Personally, I don't think much of what Rove does matters anymore. He's in that group that appeals to one demographic, who still uses antiquated tactics that now have the opposite desired effect on voters. Given how much money he was trusted with, and how little return he got, I doubt many others are paying him much attention either. The NRA, Tea Party, and Rove all joined that 2012 alumni, IMO.

As for the article, I have mixed feelings. On one hand anything is better than the last round of Republican contenders. If you can weed out the guys who make absurd rape comments, and bring in more centerest appealing Republicans, then more power to you. The other half of me realizes nothing is ever that straight forward with guys like Rove. I'm not entirely comfortable with Rove hand picking a candidate for President again. He has a talent for having candidates smooth talk the populace, but have every intention of towing the party line, aka a puppet. I guess I'd just say I hope anyone that group puts forward gets vetted, and people take a good look at their career, and record (which you should with any candidate to be honest).
I wouldn't lump in Tea Party people with Karl Rove. Rove has openly discussed his dislike for many Tea Party people and vice versa. He's stabbed more conservative people in the back by endorsing very RINO-y candidates in primaries and then ultimately leaving races completely when the primary winner is the other game.

I don't get the idea that bringing in more centrist Republicans will work in most races since there's a point where you water down the Republican so much that there's no difference and it's like a one-party race. If the race has a more liberal independent bent and an incumbent Democrat, most voters will ask, "Why settle for someone that'll only give me some of what I want (centrist Republican that isn't all that conservative) when I can get everything from the other guy (Democrat that isn't having to compromise their values as much?)"

When there's very little difference in ideology, most will still settle for the Democrat, no matter how centrist the Republican becomes. I don't get why Republicans are always the ones that have to move their belief system, but Democrats don't. Has it ever occurred that maybe Democrats are too liberal in some cases and they need to stop redrawing the line where the center is so often that they no longer know what a reasonable meeting point?
 
Last edited:
I don't get the idea that bringing in more centrist Republicans will work in most races since there's a point where you water down the Republican so much that there's no difference and it's like a one-party race. If the race has a more liberal independent bent and an incumbent Democrat, most voters will ask, "Why settle for someone that'll only give me some of what I want (centrist Republican that isn't all that conservative) when I can get everything from the other guy (Democrat that isn't having to compromise their values as much?)"

In general a more centrist candidate will get more independent voters. Now in many house districts that doesn't matter but when you running for Senate it's killer picking extreme candidates

Here is why you elect centrists

http://www.harperpolling.com/polls/conservative-intel---harper-poll-iowa

In the race for Iowa Senator Tom Harkin’s open seat, Congressman Steve King is the favorite in a multi-candidate or two-way Republican primary against Congressman Tom Latham. On the Democratic side, Congressman Bruce Braley will be the Democratic nominee if he wants it. And few doubt that he does. Latham starts out slightly ahead of Braley (36%-33%) while King would begin slightly behind Braley (34%-39%).
Should be pointed out King is the Tea Party sweetheart, while Latham is just a plain old conservative. I am guessing the DNC will be dancing in the streets when and if King wins the primary

I don't get why Republicans are always the ones that have to move their belief system, but Democrats don't.

You ever see Democrats in southern states? Democrats go under the idea it's the best bet to pick the most electable candidate(even if that person doesn't conform to rigid liberal ideology). Basically it's better to have a guy who will vote 80% of the time for what you believe win then for a guy who will vote 100% of the time lose.

As for moving positions because for the past 40 years the Republicans had a stranglehold on the direction of the country which forced the Democrats closer to the center, now the Democrats who are closer to the center to trying to gain ground back to the left ever so slightly. I don't think it's a case that the country as a whole is becoming more left, it's more a case the Republicans are going so far right they are scaring centrists right into the arms of Democrats who vote on the basis of less of 2 evils.
 
Last edited:
Republicans need to do one thing, and one thing only....shut the hell up about the social issues, and hit hard on the fiscal.
 
Republicans need to do one thing, and one thing only....shut the hell up about the social issues, and hit hard on the fiscal.

Agreed.


As an independent the only way either side will get my vote is if they are centrist on some things and don't believe their grouping is right 100% of the time. Anyone that seems to zealotish scares me and I will actively speak up against them having any power. Just my two cents in there as an independent. So a republican that's progay marriage I would totally vote for, or a dem that worked on a hard fiscal line would be much more my kind of person.
 
Agreed.


As an independent the only way either side will get my vote is if they are centrist on some things and don't believe their grouping is right 100% of the time. Anyone that seems to zealotish scares me and I will actively speak up against them having any power. Just my two cents in there as an independent. So a republican that's progay marriage I would totally vote for, or a dem that worked on a hard fiscal line would be much more my kind of person.

I don't look much at the social issues at the Federal level, I figure the courts will most always throw those things back to the states. And if it is entitlements, that isn't a social issue for me, that is a fiscal issue and I want them cut to the barebones where they HAVE TO BE EFFICIENT TO BE EFFECTIVE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"