Republican War on Themselves

[notyou2]

Is the Republican Party self destructing?

If you believe yes, state why you feel that way.

What do you think is (are) the underlying cause(s) of the issue?

[patches70]

Probably.

The underlying cause of course is not adhering to the Constitution.
For leaving the core beliefs of the Republican party behind and adopting the Neo-Con ideology.
For embracing Statism and ever greater control.
For sacrificing Individual Freedom for Group Rights.
For being a participant of spending our children and Grandchildren's money, for squandering the wealth of our nation and stealing from our unborn generations.
For gross corruption and Hypocrisy.
For selling out the Citizens and the interest of the nation for the interests of the Banks and the Corporations that have grown up around those banks.

Probably a lot more, and it's not like the Democrats aren't doing the exact same thing. Both parties have turned the Republic into an Oligarchy.

[ViperOverLord]

Probably.

The underlying cause of course is not adhering to the Constitution.
For leaving the core beliefs of the Republican party behind and adopting the Neo-Con ideology.
For embracing Statism and ever greater control.
For sacrificing Individual Freedom for Group Rights.
For being a participant of spending our children and Grandchildren's money, for squandering the wealth of our nation and stealing from our unborn generations.
For gross corruption and Hypocrisy.
For selling out the Citizens and the interest of the nation for the interests of the Banks and the Corporations that have grown up around those banks.

Probably a lot more, and it's not like the Democrats aren't doing the exact same thing. Both parties have turned the Republic into an Oligarchy.

The same could be said about the Dems.

[Phatscotty]

Probably.

The underlying cause of course is not adhering to the Constitution.
For leaving the core beliefs of the Republican party behind and adopting the Neo-Con ideology.
For embracing Statism and ever greater control.
For sacrificing Individual Freedom for Group Rights.
For being a participant of spending our children and Grandchildren's money, for squandering the wealth of our nation and stealing from our unborn generations.
For gross corruption and Hypocrisy.
For selling out the Citizens and the interest of the nation for the interests of the Banks and the Corporations that have grown up around those banks.

Probably a lot more, and it's not like the Democrats aren't doing the exact same thing. Both parties have turned the Republic into an Oligarchy.

The same could be said about the Dems.

I don't disagree with any of these.

The only thing left out is the obvious divide in the Republican party. You can say whatever you want about what happened in the 2010 election, but the GOP has acknowledged that they have a problem, and especially at the local and state levels many Republicans and Libertarians and Conservatives and Independents made a bold move and unseated many elected officials within their own party. It was not democrats who threw them out. It was an in house cleaning, and I hope it continues in the Republican party and starts to catch on in the Democrat party.

[patches70]

Probably.



Probably a lot more, and it's not like the Democrats aren't doing the exact same thing. Both parties have turned the Republic into an Oligarchy.

The same could be said about the Dems.

Yeah, I know, I said that.

[Night Strike]

The GOP is being cleaned out of Republicans and being replaced with conservatives and a few libertarians. The country will be better off for it. In the meantime, we have to stop Obama and his Democrats in this election, and then use the next few elections to replace people like Romney (because I don't see anyone else winning the nomination) with actual conservatives.

[karel]

if we get a republican prez we are all fucked,we will be worse off then we are now,any republican prez will go to war,thats all they want is war,thought they would learn this when bush lead us into 2 useless wars,now look where we are at,stuck in a rut cleaning up bush's war,this is what lead the country in a down spin.And if mit is only choice well we are screwed anyways

[Phatscotty]

if we get a republican prez we are all fucked,we will be worse off then we are now,any republican prez will go to war,thats all they want is war,thought they would learn this when bush lead us into 2 useless wars,now look where we are at,stuck in a rut cleaning up bush's war,this is what lead the country in a down spin.And if mit is only choice well we are screwed anyways

you aren't going to leave the country are you?

Let's get real for a second. When Obama got elected, I myself thought we would see a lot of "change". I gave him a chance, and I never once said we would ALL be fucked if he were elected. Obama, IMhO, has not changed shit accept for accelerated the pace of the wrong direction Bush and Clinton were sterring us, and here I am talking about actual change in policy....not the change of peoples feelings or thoughts.

Also, one person cannot fix all the problems, or ruin an entire country. It takes more than a president to do things. The power of the people is still held in Congress.

I for one am not about to base what a president will actually do based on their campaign promises and in Mitt's case the campaign has not even started yet...

[Symmetry]

Demographics come into it, though, right? A growing hispanic population, and a more prosperous African American population, as well as other ethnic minority voices, and women having a greater voice, not to mention homosexuals and their friends and family. Let's face it, the GOP is alienating these groups as they grow. Either through the policies they support, or by the policies they are portrayed as supporting, it doesn't really matter.

Playing to an increasingly hard-core of supporters simply won't work in the long run, especially on social issues. Fiscal issues have always been the Repubs strengths, but haven't really played out in practice. Meh- my two pence.

[Night Strike]

Demographics come into it, though, right? A growing hispanic population, and a more prosperous African American population, as well as other ethnic minority voices, and women having a greater voice, not to mention homosexuals and their friends and family. Let's face it, the GOP is alienating these groups as they grow. Either through the policies they support, or by the policies they are portrayed as supporting, it doesn't really matter.

Playing to an increasingly hard-core of supporters simply won't work in the long run, especially on social issues. Fiscal issues have always been the Repubs strengths, but haven't really played out in practice. Meh- my two pence.

The only place the GOP alienates minorities is when Democrats try to explain and deride conservative principles. It's those principles that actually provide freedom to everybody, including minorities. It's the Democrats who want to continue to enslave people by getting them to rely on government for their needs. Conservative principles are about freedom from government intrusions and empowering people to take care of themselves and those around them. Democratic principles revolve around demonizing anyone who wants people to be self-reliant instead of government-reliant.

[Phatscotty]

The only place the GOP alienates minorities is when Democrats try to explain and deride conservative principles. It's those principles that actually provide freedom to everybody, including minorities. It's the Democrats who want to continue to enslave people by getting them to rely on government for their needs. Conservative principles are about freedom from government intrusions and empowering people to take care of themselves and those around them. Democratic principles revolve around demonizing anyone who wants people to be self-reliant instead of government-reliant.

I didn't understand a word you said

[Night Strike]

That fence looks exactly like Democratic principles with the cows being the American people. If we were following conservative principles, the fence would be the Constitution and the cows would be the government, with the people out roaming free like they were created to do.

[Symmetry]

Demographics come into it, though, right? A growing hispanic population, and a more prosperous African American population, as well as other ethnic minority voices, and women having a greater voice, not to mention homosexuals and their friends and family. Let's face it, the GOP is alienating these groups as they grow. Either through the policies they support, or by the policies they are portrayed as supporting, it doesn't really matter.

Playing to an increasingly hard-core of supporters simply won't work in the long run, especially on social issues. Fiscal issues have always been the Repubs strengths, but haven't really played out in practice. Meh- my two pence.

The only place the GOP alienates minorities is when Democrats try to explain and deride conservative principles. It's those principles that actually provide freedom to everybody, including minorities. It's the Democrats who want to continue to enslave people by getting them to rely on government for their needs. Conservative principles are about freedom from government intrusions and empowering people to take care of themselves and those around them. Democratic principles revolve around demonizing anyone who wants people to be self-reliant instead of government-reliant.

It doesn't really matter whether all those minorities, like African Americans, Hispanics, and erm... women (who I guess are still a minority for conservatives) are being deluded because they are somehow being conned or whether Dems are actually appealing to them as thinking adults. Fact is, the GOP ain't appealing to them, and frequently seems to demonise them.

True or not, conservatives are gonna have to dial back on the calling women sluts and whores, targeting Hispanic communities in the crusade against "illegals", and associating African Americans with welfare.

[saxitoxin]

if we get a republican prez we are all fucked,we will be worse off then we are now,any republican prez will go to war,thats all they want is war

Yes, a Republican president could potentially stage a war in Afghanistan, Uganda, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen ... wait, what's left?

A growing hispanic population,

IIRC the GOP runs around 30-40% of the Hispanic vote and had about half of the membership in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus until they all quit en masse in protest of something or another.

The two institutional parties will never let the balance they've created with each other tip too far in either direction. If a vacuum is left on either side of the aisle, a thousand third parties will emerge to fill it - as has happened before - which would be far more disastrous to the remaining party than having a single monolithic competitor. This is why the Democrats and Republicans have functionally and legally integrated themselves as a single organization through certain institutions (e.g. CPD, NED-IRI, etc.), a state-of-affairs unknown anywhere else in the western world.

[patches70]

if we get a republican prez we are all fucked,we will be worse off then we are now,any republican prez will go to war,thats all they want is war,thought they would learn this when bush lead us into 2 useless wars,now look where we are at,stuck in a rut cleaning up bush's war,this is what lead the country in a down spin.And if mit is only choice well we are screwed anyways

War? You mean like Obama committing acts of war against Libya without even bothering to consult Congress first?
Obama is going to attack Iran after the election. You'll see soon enough.
Or Panetta, Obama's Sec of Defense, who just two weeks ago testified before Congress that the Executive branch doesn't need to ask Congress for permission to use military force even if it's not for self defense. The executive branch need only to decide when and where to use military force and at most need only seek permission from the international community. (Of course for self defense purposes the Executive branch need not consult Congress).

This is a scary thing. Congress and Congress alone is empowered to declare war. Not the Executive branch. The Executive branch is duty bound to carry out authorization of force but was never meant by our Founders to wage war upon anyone at the whim of the Executive.

The truth is, the left is just as war mongering as the right.

And isn't it a common belief (especially among the left) that what got us out of the Great Depression was WWII? If war is so good for the economy then we should have been bumping along waging two wars, right? Or do you believe it was something else that got us out of the Great Depression? (Just asking, I don't know what you believe.)

Or the article from Krugman (darling economist of the left) who said what Obama needs to do is start a good war (with Iran, implied) to get us out of our economic malaise and solidify support around Obama. There are people who truly believe this tripe and it's not limited only to the right.

And the worthless war in Iraq, in which some 59% of Democratic Senators voted in favor of using military force against Iraq. If you think it's only the Republicans who wage war then you're missing or ignoring a lot of history. Johnson and Vietnam. Wilson and WWI. FDR and WWII. Or the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer in the Spanish American War. Or the original "War Hawks" of the Democrat-Republicans (the precursor of the modern day Democrat Party) pushing for war in 1812.

War and the desire for it knows no political boundaries. To believe such is to ignore history and common sense. Don't be such robot....

[Symmetry]

if we get a republican prez we are all fucked,we will be worse off then we are now,any republican prez will go to war,thats all they want is war,thought they would learn this when bush lead us into 2 useless wars,now look where we are at,stuck in a rut cleaning up bush's war,this is what lead the country in a down spin.And if mit is only choice well we are screwed anyways

War? You mean like Obama committing acts of war against Libya without even bothering to consult Congress first?
Obama is going to attack Iran after the election. You'll see soon enough.
Or Panetta, Obama's Sec of Defense, who just two weeks ago testified before Congress that the Executive branch doesn't need to ask Congress for permission to use military force even if it's not for self defense. The executive branch need only to decide when and where to use military force and at most need only seek permission from the international community. (Of course for self defense purposes the Executive branch need not consult Congress).

This is a scary thing. Congress and Congress alone is empowered to declare war. Not the Executive branch. The Executive branch is duty bound to carry out authorization of force but was never meant by our Founders to wage war upon anyone at the whim of the Executive.

The truth is, the left is just as war mongering as the right.

And isn't it a common belief (especially among the left) that what got us out of the Great Depression was WWII? If war is so good for the economy then we should have been bumping along waging two wars, right? Or do you believe it was something else that got us out of the Great Depression? (Just asking, I don't know what you believe.)

Or the article from Krugman (darling economist of the left) who said what Obama needs to do is start a good war (with Iran, implied) to get us out of our economic malaise and solidify support around Obama. There are people who truly believe this tripe and it's not limited only to the right.

And the worthless war in Iraq, in which some 59% of Democratic Senators voted in favor of using military force against Iraq. If you think it's only the Republicans who wage war then you're missing or ignoring a lot of history. Johnson and Vietnam. Wilson and WWI. FDR and WWII. Or the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer in the Spanish American War. Or the original "War Hawks" of the Democrat-Republicans (the precursor of the modern day Democrat Party) pushing for war in 1812.

War and the desire for it knows no political boundaries. To believe such is to ignore history and common sense. Don't be such robot....

Fair points, but I guess the big flaw in your counter is that you seem to be arguing only that both sides do it, which kind of demands the response- do both sides do it equally? I'm not going to go into how you define the sides- of course, plenty of conservatives are non-interventionist, or, during the periods you discussed, were in favour of wars against socialist/communist govnerments, but supportive of anti-communist dictatorships that are no longer in vogue.

I guess the new diametric would be concerning Islam, though. Whether to support progressive movements in islamic countries, or to support conservative dictatorships.

[saxitoxin]

I guess the new diametric would be concerning Islam, though. Whether to support progressive movements in islamic countries, or to support conservative dictatorships.

Good point - Obama and whomever is running the Republicans this week seem to both support the conservative dictatorships (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Oman, etc.) equally. They also seem to oppose progressive movements equally. The progressive stalwart The Nation just did an expose last week on the tragic case of an ABC News freelancer who Obama has ordered imprisoned for life in Yemen, in fact, for state security crimes (interviewing someone the military censors hadn't pre-approved).

Why is Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen?

Unlike most journalists covering Al Qaeda, Shaye risked his life to travel to areas controlled by Al Qaeda and to interview its leaders. He also conducted several interviews with the radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. Shaye did the last known interview with Awlaki just before it was revealed that Awlaki, a US citizen, was on Obama's list of Americans slated for execution without trial. Awlaki was killed on Obama's orders several months later.

While Shaye, 35, had long been known as a brave, independent-minded journalist in Yemen, his collision course with the US government appears to have been set in December 2009. As the charges against him were read, according to journalist Iona Craig, a longtime foreign correspondent based in Yemen who reports regularly for the Times of London, Shaye “paced slowly around the white cell, smiling and shaking his head in disbelief.”


http://www.thenation.com/article/166757 ... ison-yemen

Democracy Now did a decent interview with the authors of The Nation article.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/15/j ... dent_obama

[Night Strike]

True or not, conservatives are gonna have to dial back on the calling women sluts and whores, targeting Hispanic communities in the crusade against "illegals", and associating African Americans with welfare.

You're equating Rush Limbaugh with all conservatives calling women sluts and whores, which is not accurate. As someone stated in another thread, conservatives want to empower women to provide for their own reproductive needs without relying on the government. Conservatives don't target Hispanic communities: we want the rule of law to prevail and for those who are here illegally to be held accountable. Illegal immigration, by Hispanics or any other group, only harms and disenfranchises those who have gone through the legal process to be here. Democratic policies support illegal immigration, which only harms all those Hispanics who have come here legally. Conservative policies give respect to the legal immigrants of all nationalities. And it's Democratic rhetoric that associates African Americans with welfare. Conservatives want those people on welfare to become working and contributing members of society again, no matter what their race is. That is impossible to achieve when the other side just argues with "you're stealing money from black people" every time the topic comes up.

[Night Strike]

By the way, I need to add that conservative policies don't care what race or nationality you are. They strive for freedom and equality for ALL people. It's Democratic policies and rhetoric that constantly try to bring up what race of people will be affected by different policies. If Democrats actually believe MLK's statement of not judging a person based on the color of their skin, then they need to stop bringing it up on every topic that is discussed. Let's focus on which policies will bring our federal government back in line with the Constitution instead of which policies can be passed to give handouts and special protections to specific races and nationalities. Let's make policies that govern ALL Americans, not just specific groups.

[Symmetry]

True or not, conservatives are gonna have to dial back on the calling women sluts and whores, targeting Hispanic communities in the crusade against "illegals", and associating African Americans with welfare.

You're equating Rush Limbaugh with all conservatives calling women sluts and whores, which is not accurate. As someone stated in another thread, conservatives want to empower women to provide for their own reproductive needs without relying on the government. Conservatives don't target Hispanic communities: we want the rule of law to prevail and for those who are here illegally to be held accountable. Illegal immigration, by Hispanics or any other group, only harms and disenfranchises those who have gone through the legal process to be here. Democratic policies support illegal immigration, which only harms all those Hispanics who have come here legally. Conservative policies give respect to the legal immigrants of all nationalities. And it's Democratic rhetoric that associates African Americans with welfare. Conservatives want those people on welfare to become working and contributing members of society again, no matter what their race is. That is impossible to achieve when the other side just argues with "you're stealing money from black people" every time the topic comes up.

Yeah, well, unfortunately women don't seem to be getting the message that the predominantly male conservative movement is selling. I guess they're not to happy with the idea that they're just to stupid to understand that those men are trying to help them, so your argument is kinda screwed both ways in trying to win over women.

Let's put this simply- it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong in terms of politics. When certain political positions are fairly or unfairly associated with a certain side, votes are won or lost. The GOP is not playing for Hispanic voters, women, African Americans, homosexuals, atheists... you name the minority group...

Simple demographic and political reality.

[Symmetry]

By the way, I need to add that conservative policies don't care what race or nationality you are.

Let's make policies that govern ALL Americans, not just specific groups.

LOL

[Night Strike]

By the way, I need to add that conservative policies don't care what race or nationality you are.

Let's make policies that govern ALL Americans, not just specific groups.

LOL

What's you problem with my statements? They are entirely coherent. Our federal government is supposed to make policies based on the Constitution for all Americans. It's Democrats who want to add hyphens in front of American based on race and nationality and then make policies based on those differences. You don't see conservatives splintering the country into their different racial groups.

[Phatscotty]

By the way, I need to add that conservative policies don't care what race or nationality you are.

Let's make policies that govern ALL Americans, not just specific groups.

LOL

You would have a lot more information if you lived here.

[Night Strike]

Let's put this simply- it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong in terms of politics. When certain political positions are fairly or unfairly associated with a certain side, votes are won or lost. The GOP is not playing for Hispanic voters, women, African Americans, homosexuals, atheists... you name the minority group...

Simple demographic and political reality.

That's why we as conservatives have to continue the up-hill battle to spread the truth about our policies to cut through the false narrative that the progressives and their media puppets have blanketed the country in.

[saxitoxin]

not to happy with the idea that they're just to stupid

this seems like the appropriate high-note on which to end this thread