How to reform the Republican Party?

[AVG-JOE]

How to reform the Republican party?

Burn it down and start all over again.

"Touch me... turn me on & burn me down..."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHi0V-CnX5o]Burn Me Down - Tony McGuire -The Delmonicos - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

We may agree to disagree here, but I don't regard continuously exploding the debt by fighting oil wars as "protecting the status quo."

I can't think of anything that better defines the status quo. Will you get behind Obama on the next one?

Doubtful it will happen before 2017, but if it does, no.

Then I'll be happy to count you on my 'side'.

 

[Circe]

That would be nice. But do you really think the Dem establishment will deny Hillary her due?

Ahhh, but you are thinking like a Republican: Last Man Standing is a GOP way to select the guy to run for president.

Dems don't do that. Obama is a case in point. It was clearly Hillary's turn, but........

Who knows what new star may turn up before 2016.

 

[dblack]

That would be nice. But do you really think the Dem establishment will deny Hillary her due?

Ahhh, but you are thinking like a Republican: Last Man Standing is a GOP way to select the guy to run for president.

Dems don't do that. Obama is a case in point. It was clearly Hillary's turn, but........

Who knows what new star may turn up before 2016.

No you missed the point - which Obama proves. They'll nominate whomever is mostly likely to maintain the status quo. Same with the rethugs.

 

[Circe]

No. I think she's likely a 60 to 80 percent chance of winning the nomination. But that would have been the same odds I gave her in 2008. She has a likability problem with women and as a Democrat that is almost fatal. If you can raise money you can sustain it but not easily.

I don't think she has a likeability problem with women. That was Michelle O. or Sarah. Hillary does great with women, because she's "the right stuff."

It's men who hate her. They do the pornographic slander thing like they did to Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution, a way to demonize and dehumanize and destroy her. I suppose they want to keep the presidency male at least, if they couldn't keep it white.

There was a thread by somebody on this forum elsewhere about Hillary support gay marriage that was so good an example of the kind of pornographic hate speech delivered against royalist women in 1790s France that it made me think about how close we are to that sort of chaos.

 

[Circe]

No you missed the point - which Obama proves. They'll nominate whomever is mostly likely to maintain the status quo. Same with the rethugs.

I don't see why you say that. Wouldn't Hillary have maintained the status quo even better than Obama?

Shooooo.....that's a lot of why I would have voted for her.

The main complaint about Obama is that he is trying to make the USA socialist, and that's not status quo. Impossible a Clinton would be so radical, surely.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That would be nice. But do you really think the Dem establishment will deny Hillary her due?

Ahhh, but you are thinking like a Republican: Last Man Standing is a GOP way to select the guy to run for president.

Dems don't do that. Obama is a case in point. It was clearly Hillary's turn, but........

Who knows what new star may turn up before 2016.

AVG-JOE Biden?

 

[dblack]

No you missed the point - which Obama proves. They'll nominate whomever is mostly likely to maintain the status quo. Same with the rethugs.

I don't see why you say that. Wouldn't Hillary have maintained the status quo even better than Obama?

You tell me. How would she have been 'better' at that than Obama?

The main complaint about Obama is that he is trying to make the USA socialist, and that's not status quo. Impossible a Clinton would be so radical, surely.

That complaint is a ruse. Obama is not a socialist, he's a corporatist - which is much worse. So is Clinton.

 

[candycorn]

No. I think she's likely a 60 to 80 percent chance of winning the nomination. But that would have been the same odds I gave her in 2008. She has a likability problem with women and as a Democrat that is almost fatal. If you can raise money you can sustain it but not easily.

I don't think she has a likeability problem with women. That was Michelle O. or Sarah. Hillary does great with women, because she's "the right stuff."

It's men who hate her. They do the pornographic slander thing like they did to Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution, a way to demonize and dehumanize and destroy her. I suppose they want to keep the presidency male at least, if they couldn't keep it white.

There was a thread by somebody on this forum elsewhere about Hillary support gay marriage that was so good an example of the kind of pornographic hate speech delivered against royalist women in 1790s France that it made me think about how close we are to that sort of chaos.

I'm between projects right now but I'll look up some quotes I remember from 07/08 about Hillary. She didn't seem as though she was winning over a lot of women in the smaller states. I think she did okay in the suburbs with upper middle income voters but the "one of us" argument was clearly won by Mr. Obama.

I don't think men particularly liked her as a group...you have a point but men are less important than ever in terms of national politics.

 

[American76Pride]

Make a new one. Liquidate the others.

 

[jwoodie]

Hillary does great with women, because she's "the right stuff."

It's men who hate her.

Do you realize how idiotic you sound? What "right stuff" are you talking about and why would men "hate" her? Every voter survey shows that likeability is a much greater factor in
women's voting decisions than it is for men.

 

[Underhill]

The right has become the party for those who want a 1950's 'Leave it to Beaver' world that never actually existed...

The left are spineless poo poo heads who want the Brave New World!

Silly strawmen don't really lead to much in the way of productive discussion, do they?

They would if they were silly.

But what I said is true. They dream of a world where we use fossil fuels with no regulations, where taxes are lower than now (the lowest since the 1950's), where people just get off their asses and go to work. They want to send gays back in the closet and women back to their back alley abortions.

But this notion that if we just get government out of our lives everything would be better doesn't ring true when held in the light of history.

 

[dblack]

The right has become the party for those who want a 1950's 'Leave it to Beaver' world that never actually existed...

The left are spineless poo poo heads who want the Brave New World!

Silly strawmen don't really lead to much in the way of productive discussion, do they?

They would if they were silly.

But what I said is true. They dream of a world where we use fossil fuels with no regulations, where taxes are lower than now (the lowest since the 1950's), where people just get off their asses and go to work. They want to send gays back in the closet and women back to their back alley abortions.

But this notion that if we just get government out of our lives everything would be better doesn't ring true when held in the light of history.

Living a cartoon world must be entertaining if nothing else.

 

[FA_Q2]

The right has become the party for those who want a 1950's 'Leave it to Beaver' world that never actually existed...

The left are spineless poo poo heads who want the Brave New World!

Silly strawmen don't really lead to much in the way of productive discussion, do they?

They would if they were silly.

But what I said is true. They dream of a world where we use fossil fuels with no regulations, where taxes are lower than now (the lowest since the 1950's), where people just get off their asses and go to work. They want to send gays back in the closet and women back to their back alley abortions.

But this notion that if we just get government out of our lives everything would be better doesn't ring true when held in the light of history.

Talking points that have no connection to reality at all.

Honestly, I have no idea how you can actually argue that any of that is even close to truth.

The real problem with the republican party is really the social issues. If they just dropped that trip, the rest would be easy. It is the continual focus that the dems force on the republican nonsense that loses election for them. The last presidential election was a good example of this. Abortion and gay marriage (neither of which Romney would have done jack shit about) were the major issues. They are MAJOR losers for the right and the worst part about it: the right is not changing any of them anyway. Gay marriage is going to happen through the courts regardless of what the right does. Obama has done essentially nothing for gay rights. Repeal of DADT is minor as it has nothing to do with civilian law and was coming in the near future anyway. Abortion is going nowhere either. The courts have spoken and there is NOTHING That the legislators/president can do about that short of adding an amendment (an impossible concept regarding that issue).

Those 2 items alone kill the right. Drop social issues already – I don’t care what you actually believe because there is no chance that we are going to make any inroads on these issues and they absolutely kill the deal with those of us that are actual small government individuals that believe in *gasp* freedom.

 

[PaulS1950]

The right needs to be governmentally and fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let people live their lives as they choose, being careful to spend money wisely, and keep the government better contained within the boundaries of the constitution.

Cut the TSA, DHS out completely all they do is use valuable resources and interfere with our rights in a "feel good" attempt.

 

[FA_Q2]

As came up in another thread – the problem is the primary process. It magnifies the religious rights voice and forces candidates to placate their views. Again, Romney was a good example. He really was not all over the religious right bullshit but by the time that he managed to get through the primaries he was already burdened with the social issues. Without cutting his own throat in the general election, he would have never made it out of the primaries. We need real change there and that is likely to change the party itself.

 

[PaulS1950]

That is why I say to make the Libertarian party the second party. They are fiscal conservative - almost to a fault (if there is such a thing), They believe in the constitutional limitations on the federal government, and they don't interfere with the rights and liberties of the individual.

The only thing that is not to like is that they won't pander to "special" interest groups. I like that but some do not.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is why I say to make the Libertarian party the second party. They are fiscal conservative - almost to a fault (if there is such a thing), They believe in the constitutional limitations on the federal government, and they don't interfere with the rights and liberties of the individual.

The only thing that is not to like is that they won't pander to "special" interest groups. I like that but some do not.

the major problem with that is so many people are locked into the asinine idea that we have a 2 party system and they REFUSE to stray. There are waaaay to many people that vote based on the letter next to the name.

 

[Kelamity]

Great message... thank you!

 

[Kelamity]

Probably kills the buzz of a post to agree with it, vice flame about it... i think you're spot on though with respect to the Republican party hurting itself by its emphasis on the social issues it chooses to prioritize and rail against.