Taking back the Republican party

[Eihger]

In what sense are you using the word 'integrated'?

Its become so common place that there's no way to dislodge it from our mindsets. I'm talking straight human nature, not political systems. We as an animal MUST have groups to fall into.

Well - you could try to re-write a bit of the constitution. I mean, other democratic nations have more than two major parties. There ARE systematic factors in our electoral process that push us towards having only two major parties at any one time, namely that a vote for X is also a vote NOT for Y and Z, and so candidates X, without broad appeal don't get people voting for him because people also 'kinda' like Y, and see Y as having MORE support, and really don't want Z to win - meanwhile, Z might win, if too many people split of from Y and vote for X, even though fewer people want Z to be an office holder than they want Y to be.

Thats not the problem, the laws in place allow for third parties, but we just boil them down into the present parties because thats what we are used to. There wont be a big third party, EVER in any English speaking nation ( check that shit out)

Its not so much that third party parties can't pop up, its we wont allow them to grow simply because they aren't already big. People are catastrophically stupid in that regard. The only way to fix this is to make political parties illegal, and force people to research candidates. That way people MIGHT think twice about candidates or just vote for the louder one, as we did this election.

It really makes me sad, whats worse is that there are growing physical borders as well, I can see the doom happening, and with our current " THROW MONEY AT PROBLEMS" mentality those borders could become hot zones. 20 Us denomination equivalent at the time on a Blue state igniting conflict.

If the Democrats do it, it's young, it's fresh, it's hip, it's smart, it's savvy, it's smooth and connected and plugged in. If Republicans do it, it's desperate, it's halting, it's manipulative, it's evil, it's condescending, it's aloof, it's gasping and grasping and gh3y.

Pretty much yeah. I bet no one knows about White Watergate, Kosovo, Grenada, Nicaragua, Half the New deal programs, or even vietnam before Nixon was elected.

Take Watergate, what exactly happened? Nixon wanted to know the tactics the democrat party were going to use against him in the election. Name me a president that DIDN'T do this, but Nixon was a republican, so it was evil and hes the second most evil person since hitler. Least Nixon didn't have someone killed like Hillary Clinton did in the White Watergate incident, instead they just had a high profile scandal with Monica Lewinsky. And since in America Sex is more satanic and evil than murder, THAT story took top priority.

But I'll end up on a multipage rant on the Clinton administration if I don't catch myself

[BtEO]

Thats not the problem, the laws in place allow for third parties, but we just boil them down into the present parties because thats what we are used to. There wont be a big third party, EVER in any English speaking nation ( check that shit out)

Liberal Democrats.

They currently hold a little under 10% of the seats in the Commons; they'd be much higher if ours wasn't a first-past-the-post system — at the 2005 elections they gained nearly a quarter of the votes^[1]. They do even better in local council elections, beating Labour into third place last year on simple vote share, although again not in terms of councillors or councils. They are generally consulted by the media just as often as Labour and the Conservatives on current news stories.

Big enough to count?

^{[1] In their previous incarnation as an alliance of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party they between them gained 26% in the 1983 elections.}

[Lizzegirle]

I don't take your meaning on that. I said the Democratic party is a shit sandwich, which it most certainly is. I can't and won't apologize for that. There are a couple of edible parts near the crust of its moldy bread, but precious few, and the rotten part is pretty aggressive about taking over what's left. And I also said so about the Republican party, which I thought I made abundantly clear. In fact, the entire post was pretty much "Screw the Republican party." There are no sacred cows, here, despite of what Peta would have you believe.

Just because it's your damn opinion doesn't mean you have to voice it. Since I'm certain you were raised by a good Texas mother, then I know that you were told "If you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all."

But you're right... it was my fault for coming in here with a legitimate answer to your question and then asking for you to be civil. It's my mistake for entering PACE in general - I try to make it a rule to never come in here because of that kind of bullshit.

[JermCool]

If the Democrats do it, it's young, it's fresh, it's hip, it's smart, it's savvy, it's smooth and connected and plugged in. If Republicans do it, it's desperate, it's halting, it's manipulative, it's evil, it's condescending, it's aloof, it's gasping and grasping and gh3y.

Who gives a shit what the MSM has to say about it? If you want to pull the party back together, you don't try to make yourself look good to the left. Left be damned, I say!

I want a party who will stand up and say "We're going to get the federal budget to $500B".

Holy shit. First I want to know how. Then I want to know where to sign. Honestly, you don't sound like a Republican. You sound a helluvalot more like a fairly strong Libertarian.

$500B is probably a pipe dream, but there has GOT to be a way to get it below $1T. I started playing with that calculator Adciv linked and was amazed by at the wastes that are DHHS and Social Security. After I totally eliminated those, I had a budget surplus that pinned the needle. With that kind of surplus, the corporate tax rate could be lowered thereby decreasing unemployment.

But I am a Republican. I am against gay marriage (though I do believe they deserve some sort of legal protection such as Civil Unions and Common Law Relationships). I am staunchly Pro-Life (BTW, I'm not going to debate those positions here). I suppose you could say I am fiscally Libertarian, but definitely socially Republican - as are most Republicans. We are the base of the party. I am the type of Republican that feels betrayed by the party and who only voted for McCain because I knew what kind of socialist state we were going to be seeing under Obama.

And someone needs to muzzle Powell. No one has any illusions that this man is a true Republican.

I'm not sure what the deal is with him, but somehow I think it's partly that he feels he has something important to say and partly that he's enjoying all the favorable press he's getting now that he's going along with what they want people to think.

But he's not a Republican! He never was! Even when he was General Powell who kicked ass and took names in the Desert Storm, we knew he wasn't a conservative. He was conveniently a Republican as SecState, but even then he wasn't convincing. So to parade himself around as being a voice of the Republican party just frustrates the hell out of me because the media (who tore him apart as SecState as he seems to have forgotten) laps it up.

[Eihger]

BtEO: Liberal Democrats are still "left" and as far as the public is concerned they are the democrat party not the peoples front of Judea

Just because it's your damn opinion doesn't mean you have to voice it.

Lizzie, its hard not to step on anyone toes when talking about this stuff. In actuality this is a forum made SPECIFICALLY for people to voice their opinions. There will be differences. Now I've been following you're little conflict with you and Deacon, and while your answer was informative and helpful, Deacon never attacked you, just your implied political affiliates. Why you take it personally is your problem not mine, but it doesn't help you along that you continue to get hostile over it while voicing your own opinion. At no point does he accost you but simply voices his opinion, as per human and legal right, as I'm sure you can respect. I guess what I am trying to say is you need to come here with an open mind for discussion, even if you harmlessly give an answer to an innocent question. As he said, there are no sacred cows.

[The Cid]

BtEO: Liberal Democrats are still "left" and as far as the public is concerned they are the democrat party not the peoples front of Judea

There wont be a big third party, EVER in any English speaking nation ( check that shit out)

You said there will never be a successful third party in an English speaking nation. Don't split hairs.

And I don't agree at all with your stance on third parties. Of course, I'm in one of them, so maybe I'm biased. I went Libertarian because while I consider myself conservative, when it comes to social issues I'm as "hands-off" as I am when it comes to fiscal issues. So I can't go Democrat because they spend too much and want government to be too big, but I can't go Republican because I don't agree with that party one bit on social issues--and in that sense I feel they too want our government to be large and immensely powerful.

So I won't be choosing between, as Deacon so skillfully words it, Shit Sandwich Left and Shit Sandwich Right.

And while I do feel for the Republicans like Jerm that feel their party has abandoned the ideals that made them join up in the first place, I think that these are all symptoms of a system that's showing signs of danger. Those who vote are so divided, and then there are so many people who have been turned off entirely by the whole process.

Deacon had a wonderful point in his first post I'm going to quote here:

And more importantly, since when is it more important that whatever "party" you belong to be #1 rather than simply promoting what's good and right? Shouldn't the concepts of smaller government and more social freedom be enough on their own? And why is it so critical that it be the Republicans in charge?

That's just it. The Republican Party isn't some overreaching corporation with a unified plan and millions of voters marching in step behind them. The Democratic Party isn't a giant non-profit with a fleet of hybrids and a pile of handouts. But people outside of these parties often caricature them so much that we've boiled everything in Washington down to Us vs. Them. Red vs. Blue. I won't repeat myself, but I do believe that this is getting worse and worse, and I'm absolutely mortified of how big this political divide may become.

[BtEO]

Yes, apparently he was using a different definition of third party to the normal one. One where all parties are grouped into either left or right, and the mythical third party would be the one to somehow balance perfectly on the razor's edge between the two. I see a problem there…

[Eihger]

Yes, apparently he was using a different definition of third party to the normal one. One where all parties are grouped into either left or right, and the mythical third party would be the one to somehow balance perfectly on the razor's edge between the two. I see a problem there…

No, Thats what the people have as their mentality. Being in the minority makes your side seem bigger, but truth be told theres more of them than there is of us, and when you can win on pluralities, numbers matter.

[BtEO]

I still say the Lib Dems fits any sensible definition of a "big third party" that might exist, they have MPs, MEPs, councillors and councils, they have Lords, they have political influence, they have mainstream media influence — they matter in British politics and cannot be disregarded as you are attempting to do even if they're not as big as the two parties above them.

We do not have the two-way system seen in America, no matter how you try to twist things to fit your initial assertion.

[adciv]

$500B is probably a pipe dream, but there has GOT to be a way to get it below $1T. I started playing with that calculator Adciv linked and was amazed by at the wastes that are DHHS and Social Security. After I totally eliminated those, I had a budget surplus that pinned the needle. With that kind of surplus, the corporate tax rate could be lowered thereby decreasing unemployment.

You forgot to go to the receipts tab and eliminate the 'Social Insurance Taxes'. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't want to wipe out all of DHHS. The FDA is part of DHHS and is it's own separate sub tab under DHS in that applet. So are NIH and CDC. Might I suggest also taking a look at HUD.

As to getting it below $1T. Interest on the national debt is $547B of which about half is going towards Social Security. Now, you might be able to get the non-interest portion below $1T, but not the entire budget including interest. Not without gutting the DoD, anyway.

Suggestion: Cid, Deacon, Jerm, Liz, Greg, me. Run for office.

On the two-party US system. It's not as two-party as some make it out to be. We have conservative democrats and liberal republicans. It's just that the party labels are generally used more than taking a look at an individuals stances. We have congress members from CA who make Lenin look like a capitalist and I'm pretty sure I could find someone after Heinlein's heart somewhere.

[JermCool]

I don't know that I'd make a good politician. I'd have no patience for international diplomacy. N. Korea's rockets? Shot down. Iran's warships? Move them or lose them. The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a new parking lot. I'd be telling the UN if they didn't like it, here's where to go, how to get there, and what to do with themselves when they arrived.

[StruckingFuggle]

The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a new parking lot.

And here I thought the problem with terrorists was their treating the lives of innocents like they don't matter in pursuit of their goals... but I guess killing a bunch of innocent people to kill a bunch of your enemies and strike terror into the rest to inspire them to lay down arms and let you have your way isn't terrorism when we do it, somehow...


Somehow I think if people like you ran the country, our national history would start seeming like a cowboy movie.

And I know the one it would most emulate.

Shane.

Shane dies in the end.

[JermCool]

Never saw it. But thanks for your completely helpful and intuitive contribution to this particular thread.

[StruckingFuggle]

Oh, I'm just agreeing with you that you wouldn't make a good politician.

That and I'm goddamn sick of hypocrites talking about bombing some part of the middle east into pacifism because they hate the violence and then turn around and condemn terrorism, when they're resorting to mass murder (and when you kill a innocent person, it is murder) and terror tactics to accomplish their goals. You cannot advocate that position and simultaneously condemn terrorism on principle, sir. The Titanic, after being struck by an iceberg and beginning to sink into the sea, had more integrity than that position.

[Martin Blank]

I am damned sick and tired of these RINOs (Republican In Name Only)

I have always despised this term since I first heard Larry Elder use it on KABC radio in Los Angeles. I thought Powell nailed it in his appearance on Face the Nation this weekend.

Neither [Cheney] nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership committee of the Republican Party.

And neither are you, for that matter. I've seen Powell speak in person. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life, and I wish that I had recorded it (there was technically a ban on recording devices in the hall, but I don't think anyone was enforcing it). He is a man who speaks and acts from the heart, and I believe what he says regarding his loyalty to the party. Powell hasn't changed. The Republican Party has changed. It's no longer the party of Ronald Reagan, but of Joseph McCarthy's ghost, where a terrorist is crouching behind every curtain, and the possible deaths of hundreds or thousands bring down a harsher response than the threat of nuclear annihilation. I suspect Reagan would walk away from the party as it stands today.

I see the Democrats as having achieved power in large part because they don't lambaste those members that stray from the party line as do the current batch of Republicans. Democrats are -- and have been for many years -- happy to have with them Blue Dog Democrats, which hold such diverse (though not universal) views as being strongly pro-gun, pro-life, pro-war, anti-immigration, and against expansion of public welfare. If you want to see where a viable third party could come from, it's this group. If they all decided en masse to make a move to a third party, it would shake up American politics like few other events could.