Death of the Republican Party

[Phatscotty]

Example: Republicans started social services like SOCIAL security, medicare, medicaid, feed-the-hungry programs.

Is that true? Checking....
Doesn't compute.

Here is FDR signing the Social Security act of 1935-


Please note, there is no Republicans standing around him at all. Congress controlled by Democrats.

Let's see, medicare and medicaid.* Created under the SS Act of 1935, signed into law, 1965 by Lyndon Johnson. Power in Congress shifted from Republicans (during the McCarthy era) to Democrats with the election of JFK in 1960 in which Democrats dominated Congress until 1994. Of note, Democrats took control of Congress as well when FDR was elected after the miserable

I'm not sure how you justify the claim of "Republicans started SS, Medicaid&Medicare". Not sure about feed the hungry, but recently a Democratic mayor of a city tried to ban private organizations from feeding the homeless. That was struck down by the courts. I'm sure someone would know who that was and what city. Apparently, this mayor felt that only government services were could feed the homeless. So maybe it was Republicans encouraging private charities to feed homeless and hungry people, a Democrat mayor certainly tried to put a stop to it (and failed).
Personally, I figure those churches and private charities feeding hungry people don't care much about the politics, they just want to try and help people.

So, unless you can provide some citation to the claims, I have to declare your claims as either mistakes/exaggerations/misrepresentations/falsehoods.

Now I'm not claiming that Republicans aren't statists, like Democrats, since the GOP has drifted into statism for quite a while now. I just don't think your claim there above is very accurate at all.


*It was the 89th Congress that passed Medicare/Medicaid, take a look at the 89th Congress in this helpful picture-


KEY- Darker the blue, democrats, The brighter the red, Republicans
The numbers-
Senate- 67(D) 33(R)
House- 289(D) 136(R)

As you can see, not many Republicans.....

And it was the 74th US Congress that passed Social Security, breakdown of Dems vs Rep-
Senate- 73(D), 21(R)
House- 322 (D), 103(R)

Do you think the haters intentionally goad us into educating them?

[Phatscotty]

The hypocricy of the Tea Baggers is monumental.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgec9WX21ik&feature=related
if it comes from the government, but try to take away their Social Security, VA benefits, Medicare OR the Medicare D

what is monumental is your failure to recognize that people EARN the privileges of SS, VA, and Medi's.

yeah....if you pay into an account your entire life or serve in the military with the promise of a return, and then it's taken away from you.....oh nobody has the right to be upset about that!

Get a clue!

I think you watched the wrong video. What video did you watch?

I was responding to what she said. Nothing to do with the video

[Nola_Lifer]

The hypocricy of the Tea Baggers is monumental.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgec9WX21ik&feature=related
if it comes from the government, but try to take away their Social Security, VA benefits, Medicare OR the Medicare D

what is monumental is your failure to recognize that people EARN the privileges of SS, VA, and Medi's.

yeah....if you pay into an account your entire life or serve in the military with the promise of a return, and then it's taken away from you.....oh nobody has the right to be upset about that!

Get a clue!

I think you watched the wrong video. What video did you watch?

I was responding to what she said. Nothing to do with the video

Should of watched that video because the comment comes directly from the video. That Tea Party don't want "Communism/Socialism" but they want their SS, VA benefits, and Medi. Don't speak of monumentals when you don't even know the context of what is being talked about.

[Woodruff]

Exactly what is it that you think I am "believing" in this thread, Phatscotty?

It's not you so much as it is anyone who believes in "the death of the Republican Party". Your buddies thoughts almost sound like some kind of sick fantasy of death and destruction.

That really doesn't follow...why would he want any such thing?

I hope he does not own any firearms, because if he continues to think these things and then gets blindsided in November, well that might be the end of the world to someone who lived in an alternate reality for so long.

That doesn't even make basic sense.

I know what's happening on the ground.

Well, you know what your handlers have told you, anyway. I don't honestly believe you have the objectivity necessary to know what's really happening on the ground.

United we stand, divided we fall. It's more important now than ever.

It's really unfortunate that you don't actually believe that. You only want "united the way I want you to unite".

[Woodruff]

The hypocricy of the Tea Baggers is monumental.

The hypocricy of someone using the term "Tea Bagger" is monumental, as well.

[Woodruff]

There are no moderate (or even moderate conservatives) in the Democrat Party if they vote for Obama in this election. Obama himself is a radical, and the radical left has jerked the Democrat Party far to the left.

You want to know why the Republican party will be just fine? This. This sort of thinking. A massive part of this country seems to think that not only is Obama left wing, but that he's a borderline Communist. That might be a completely delusional belief, but the only thing that matters in politics is public perception. We're going to keep voting in the other side of the same coin, and whoever isn't in office is going to screech and wail about decisions they would have supported and defended had their team made them. This will continue until people smarten up and start looking for information from places outside of the mainstream propaganda networks, i.e., never.

I tend to agree with you.

[Woodruff]

It seems GBU is just as obsessed with the Tea Party as Woodruff is with Phatscotty.

I'm not obsessed with you. It simply happens that both you and I post a great deal individually. That combined with my disdain for hypocricy (which you post in egregious amounts) probably does give that impression, I'll admit.

[Woodruff]

The hypocricy of the Tea Baggers is monumental.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgec9WX21ik&feature=related
if it comes from the government, but try to take away their Social Security, VA benefits, Medicare OR the Medicare D

what is monumental is your failure to recognize that people EARN the privileges of SS, VA, and Medi's.

yeah....if you pay into an account your entire life or serve in the military with the promise of a return, and then it's taken away from you.....oh nobody has the right to be upset about that!

Get a clue!

I think you watched the wrong video. What video did you watch?

I was responding to what she said. Nothing to do with the video

Should of watched that video because the comment comes directly from the video. That Tea Party don't want "Communism/Socialism" but they want their SS, VA benefits, and Medi. Don't speak of monumentals when you don't even know the context of what is being talked about.

Oh, you must be new here, Nola_Lifer! Well, welcome aboard! I see you've just met Phatscotty for the first time. Well, there are a lot of us here...if you'd like me to show you around, just let me know!

[GreecePwns]

So we all agree that the libertarians and social conservatives/warhawks/corporatists are fighting for the domination in the party?

So given that these two sides will not go away any time soon, the infighting will be long and painful, and eventually this could easily lead to a split in the Republican party or its death on the national stage. One thing that would spark this quickly: a libertarian presidential candidate. The social conservatives would rather have a "moderate" Democrat (aka social conservative/warhawk/corporatist) president than a libertarian one.

The alternative way this conflict escalates is a continuation of the stalemate for control of the Congressional Republican Caucus, caused by more libertarian gains (again, actual libertarians, not conservatives using libertarian rhetoric). A republican-led Congress would be one that got nothing done unless they got moderate Democrats (who belong to the warhawk/corporatist group above) to vote with them. At this point, the neocons that lose their seats to libertarians would just as likely change parties to save their jobs.

This in turn leads to the true left in the Democratic party to be left behind. They would only be able to make a resurgence through forming their own party, due to their lower numbers compared to the libertarian wing. So this is how we get 3 parties in Congress, with one (the Democratic) dominating over the other two.

[Frigidus]

So we all agree that the libertarians and social conservatives/warhawks/corporatists are fighting for the domination in the party?

So given that these two sides will not go away any time soon, the infighting will be long and painful, and eventually this could easily lead to a split in the Republican party or its death on the national stage. One thing that would spark this quickly: a libertarian presidential candidate. The social conservatives would rather have a "moderate" Democrat (aka social conservative/warhawk/corporatist) president than a libertarian one.

The alternative way this conflict escalates is a continuation of the stalemate for control of the Congressional Republican Caucus, caused by more libertarian gains (again, actual libertarians, not conservatives using libertarian rhetoric). A republican-led Congress would be one that got nothing done unless they got moderate Democrats (who belong to the warhawk/corporatist group above) to vote with them. At this point, the neocons that lose their seats to libertarians would just as likely change parties to save their jobs.

This in turn leads to the true left in the Democratic party to be left behind. They would only be able to make a resurgence through forming their own party, due to their lower numbers compared to the libertarian wing. So this is how we get 3 parties in Congress, with one (the Democratic) dominating over the other two.

That would certainly be nice, but I just don't see it happening. That said, I sure as hell would vote for a libertarian that actually backed his words up with actions over another Democrat in name only.

[PLAYER57832]

So we all agree that the libertarians and social conservatives/warhawks/corporatists are fighting for the domination in the party?

So given that these two sides will not go away any time soon, the infighting will be long and painful, and eventually this could easily lead to a split in the Republican party or its death on the national stage. One thing that would spark this quickly: a libertarian presidential candidate. The social conservatives would rather have a "moderate" Democrat (aka social conservative/warhawk/corporatist) president than a libertarian one.

Not really, no. They want someone to outlaw abortion, homosexuality and to uphold Christain values in general. They have been effectively brainwashed into believing that the way to get this is to give corporations more freedom.

The alternative way this conflict escalates is a continuation of the stalemate for control of the Congressional Republican Caucus, caused by more libertarian gains (again, actual libertarians, not conservatives using libertarian rhetoric). A republican-led Congress would be one that got nothing done unless they got moderate Democrats (who belong to the warhawk/corporatist group above) to vote with them. At this point, the neocons that lose their seats to libertarians would just as likely change parties to save their jobs.

This in turn leads to the true left in the Democratic party to be left behind. They would only be able to make a resurgence through forming their own party, due to their lower numbers compared to the libertarian wing. So this is how we get 3 parties in Congress, with one (the Democratic) dominating over the other two.

I see a third party, but not how you describe. I see that as the illusion that those who are in power are attempting to get people to buy into. In truth, there is no real power in the true liberaterian party, except corporate power.. and they already have control, so there is no need to create a new party. The ones who need a new party, one that looks out after our interests, are the majority of Americans who work at for pay jobs, who don't get their money from playing money games (OK..an occasional rare lottery winner or casino winner excepted), who just want decent education, food, a house and a few extras like a vacation now and then... WE are the ones who need a new party. We could have it, too.. but folks are too busy feeding the corporate monsters to bother uniting and achieving anything unless its opposing homosexuality and abortion. (with other women's issues, anti-poverty measures thrown in secondarily).

[GreecePwns]

Who will you be voting for in November?

[Woodruff]

So we all agree that the libertarians and social conservatives/warhawks/corporatists are fighting for the domination in the party?

So given that these two sides will not go away any time soon, the infighting will be long and painful, and eventually this could easily lead to a split in the Republican party or its death on the national stage. One thing that would spark this quickly: a libertarian presidential candidate. The social conservatives would rather have a "moderate" Democrat (aka social conservative/warhawk/corporatist) president than a libertarian one.

The alternative way this conflict escalates is a continuation of the stalemate for control of the Congressional Republican Caucus, caused by more libertarian gains (again, actual libertarians, not conservatives using libertarian rhetoric). A republican-led Congress would be one that got nothing done unless they got moderate Democrats (who belong to the warhawk/corporatist group above) to vote with them. At this point, the neocons that lose their seats to libertarians would just as likely change parties to save their jobs.

This in turn leads to the true left in the Democratic party to be left behind. They would only be able to make a resurgence through forming their own party, due to their lower numbers compared to the libertarian wing. So this is how we get 3 parties in Congress, with one (the Democratic) dominating over the other two.

That would certainly be nice, but I just don't see it happening. That said, I sure as hell would vote for a libertarian that actually backed his words up with actions over another Democrat in name only.

Thus, the appeal of Ron Paul.

[Woodruff]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

[Nola_Lifer]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

That is a weak argument to vote for Romney. Don't you fear for the way we look to the outside world. Romney will just make the rest of the world to hate us.

[spurgistan]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

If I might argue the point that Obama never really had a shot, that he's been hamstrung by a do-nothing Congress (the fact that nobody's talking about how Congress right now has a 10% approval rating is absurd) that has been devoted to not letting Barack Obama do anything, and frankly, what little he's done has taken obscene amounts of effort. However, I argue this as somebody who hasn't voted for a mainstream candidate, so, vote Jill Stein. There are more than two candidates in this election. Don't vote for Romney, I guess, is the important thing.

[Woodruff]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

That is a weak argument to vote for Romney.

I think I as much as admitted that, didn't I?

Don't you fear for the way we look to the outside world. Romney will just make the rest of the world to hate us.

You may not have noticed, but the rest of the world isn't particularly fond of us already. Perhaps you can point out to me what Obama has done as regards foreign policy that is appreciably different from what you might expect Romney to do?

[Woodruff]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

If I might argue the point that Obama never really had a shot, that he's been hamstrung by a do-nothing Congress (the fact that nobody's talking about how Congress right now has a 10% approval rating is absurd) that has been devoted to not letting Barack Obama do anything, and frankly, what little he's done has taken obscene amounts of effort. However, I argue this as somebody who hasn't voted for a mainstream candidate, so, vote Jill Stein. There are more than two candidates in this election. Don't vote for Romney, I guess, is the important thing.

I understand, and agree a fair amount with the argument. But then I look at his "efforts" to repeal the Patriot Act, for instance...and I don't see any.

[GreecePwns]

I will slightly alter the quote of a Greek politician:

"Whoever wins these elections doesn't matter, this will be Bush's fourth term."

[Night Strike]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

If I might argue the point that Obama never really had a shot, that he's been hamstrung by a do-nothing Congress (the fact that nobody's talking about how Congress right now has a 10% approval rating is absurd) that has been devoted to not letting Barack Obama do anything, and frankly, what little he's done has taken obscene amounts of effort. However, I argue this as somebody who hasn't voted for a mainstream candidate, so, vote Jill Stein. There are more than two candidates in this election. Don't vote for Romney, I guess, is the important thing.

So the fact that Obama had a Democrat super-majority in Congress for well over a year means the Republicans are to blame for doing nothing? And if you want to look at which party is doing nothing, you need to look to Harry Reid and the senate, as just last week he said that he's more concerned about whether the Washington Nationals will make it to the playoffs than actually taking votes in the Senate. The House has been passing plenty of legislation to make spending cuts, a budget template (that the Senate hasn't done for over 3 years), and tax provisions that would spur job growth. The Senate has done none of that due to its majority leader.

[spurgistan]

Weird, I write "Congress" and you read "Republicans."

[spurgistan]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

If I might argue the point that Obama never really had a shot, that he's been hamstrung by a do-nothing Congress (the fact that nobody's talking about how Congress right now has a 10% approval rating is absurd) that has been devoted to not letting Barack Obama do anything, and frankly, what little he's done has taken obscene amounts of effort. However, I argue this as somebody who hasn't voted for a mainstream candidate, so, vote Jill Stein. There are more than two candidates in this election. Don't vote for Romney, I guess, is the important thing.

I understand, and agree a fair amount with the argument. But then I look at his "efforts" to repeal the Patriot Act, for instance...and I don't see any.

I was unaware Romney even pretended to oppose any of the elements of the Patriot Act for reasons other than not being strong enough.

[Woodruff]

Weird, I write "Congress" and you read "Republicans."

"Us Versus Them", baby...it's all he knows.

[Woodruff]

Who will you be voting for in November?

I don't know. If Phatscotty's raving madman spiel has any bite to it, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to be the case. That leaves me with shit in one hand and crap in the other, and I don't want to take a bite of either one. Frankly, at this point, and with no further information, I would probably vote for Romney simply from the perspective of "Obama had his shot and he didn't do what he was supposed to, so give it to the other guy". Sad as that is.

If I might argue the point that Obama never really had a shot, that he's been hamstrung by a do-nothing Congress (the fact that nobody's talking about how Congress right now has a 10% approval rating is absurd) that has been devoted to not letting Barack Obama do anything, and frankly, what little he's done has taken obscene amounts of effort. However, I argue this as somebody who hasn't voted for a mainstream candidate, so, vote Jill Stein. There are more than two candidates in this election. Don't vote for Romney, I guess, is the important thing.

I understand, and agree a fair amount with the argument. But then I look at his "efforts" to repeal the Patriot Act, for instance...and I don't see any.

I was unaware Romney even pretended to oppose any of the elements of the Patriot Act for reasons other than not being strong enough.

I'm not aware that he is either. That is simply one example of the many reasons why I will not vote for Obama. He has shown me that he has no political will to follow through on the promises he made that I consider to be of utmost importance.