Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
They wouldn't have broader appeal, they'd just appeal to different people. They'd lose their base. If you want fiscal conservatives/social liberals, you should be looking at Libertarians, not Republicans
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
My guess is that what Biden does will be the clue as to what Obama is thinking. If he goes, it's only because he has the Blessing. And then the FBI (et al) punches the clock.
Actually I think you refuse to believe what is going on. Only 26% of people identify themselves as Republicans.
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
the Wild Card too is who is the post-Administration face of the Democratic Party...will the Obamas or Clintons being running the show? That could factor into the decision.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
The real problem is the way the spending bills are done. There is not supposed to be one huge spending bill. They do not follow regular order and rely on continuing resolutions.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
RE: This idea of liberal vs conservative I believe is flawed too
Actually I think you refuse to believe what is going on. Only 26% of people identify themselves as Republicans.
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
You don't see people saying give rich people's money to the poor?
I think you might have a fb issue more than anything else.
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
I think that is why she is now trying to distance herself more from him because it is a lost cause. Biden is running at this point and the WH will be firmly behind him. Everyone knows this so why even pretend anymore. Other than saying I'm a woman so that makes me an outsider too, what big difference was Hillary going to offer from a Biden candidacy?
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
Half the country is conservative. 26 percent? The Republicans would be a fringe party and would have no shot at the WH, let alone control of both houses.
Debating this stuff with you becomes pointless if you simply throw out wild statements like that.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Honestly, Eric, you probably don't know what you are talking about when you say "Obama loves the shutdown" or Obama "could give a fuck about the National debt." Both comments suggest clairvoyance.
You only imagine and project what you think about how Obama percieves these issues.
He is very transparent. Although not in the way he promised to be. Do you think he cares about the National Debt? He pretended to when he was a Senator and said that Bush was 'unpatriotic' for have the debt at half of what it is now.
extreme. They tried to strong-arm politicians into taking a pledge to NEVER raise taxes. Good, reasonable politicians lost races because they wouldn't take that dumb pledge. If that's not extreme then I don't know what is.
You know whats funny. You are so stupid that you not only keep putting the naked shorts stuff out there but you don't even realize that I was right about what I said and it is still being proven today. Even one of the idiots on real housewives just went to jail for a number of years for it.
And it is also believed by many to be a big cause of the volatility in foreign markets which then directly impacts and causes high volatility in ours...
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
I'm talking about both parties in General, but people keep sliding Obama and Clinton into this.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
Please give examples.
RE: This idea of liberal vs conservative I believe is flawed too
I know plenty of what I call crazy conservatives. People to the Hard right. Obama has destroyed this country. He is coming for your guns etc....
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
I do. Where I live they're actually quite common, and super annoying.
An asshole as he may be, Bill Maher addresses and details their existence pretty regularly and accurately. Sure, usually it's in the defensive, retaliatory context of, "These stupid liberals all freaked out about something I said about Muslims!" But filter a bit of the vitriol out and his points stand -- there are quite a few liberals whose positions seem to be more of a knee-jerk anti status quo reflex than anything else.
I don't see it. I have 5 AM radio stations at any given time saying the opposite.
And control of their Uterus is not a extreme left viewpoint. It is the current law.
Almost tax we have is built on that foundation. The ACA is built upon it. Almost every proposed tax plan, save maybe Carson's, says that. In the more extreme positions, people like DiBlasio have labeled surtax proposals that say that.
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
The election is a binary choice at this point. Not sure how you don't get that. But only 26% of associate as part of the Republican brand. Democrats is about 50% higher then that.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
Supposedly there was a deal that Bill Clinton supported Obama in 2012 (he made a speech at the convention) and Obama was supposed to support Hillary in 2016. But there is no love lost between the Obama's and the Clintons. Did you read 'Blood Fued'? very interesting book.
What I've learned over the years is people vote for Party regardless of who the Party nominates. They say they will keep an open mind, but they really don't.
Are there really any independents? Or is that a self-described designation that makes one feel above messy Party politics?
I think about 10% of the electorate are true independents. I think there are another 10% that vote predominantly for 1 party but, based on specific issues, could switch their vote (i.e. Democrats who voted for Nixon in '72 based on economics or Republicans in '04 who voted for Kerry based on opposition to Iraq). The other 80% are about as locked in as you can get.
RE: RE: Again, can people really say with a straight face
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
The election is a binary choice at this point. Not sure how you don't get that. But only 26% of associate as part of the Republican brand. Democrats is about 50% higher then that.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
None of that makes any sense. Starting with the results of the mid-terms and ending up with "best"candidate...defined only according to your standards.
Now you are full of it. A lot had to do with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Again what would have been a far right position 20 years ago.
extreme. They tried to strong-arm politicians into taking a pledge to NEVER raise taxes. Good, reasonable politicians lost races because they wouldn't take that dumb pledge. If that's not extreme then I don't know what is.
I call that being terribly stubborn in sticking to one's outlined principals, but I wouldn't call it "extreme." How is pledging not to raise taxes extreme? (I personally think pledges like that are just for show and dumb).
"The Tea Party" is an umbrella handle...there are all kinds of people who are interested in all kinds of things in it...but the common themes are smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a renewed adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Anti-illegal immigration has seeped into it now, but there are a lot of blue collar Democrats who are anti-illegal immigration too.
All the more reason to stop playing the game. If the American people are hellbent on an ever-expanding, unsustainable welfare state, who am I to oppose that? Long live the voice of the people.
RE: Again, can people really say with a straight face
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
Now you are full of it. A lot had to do with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Again what would have been a far right position 20 years ago.
A progressive tax is redistributive. So, maybe your fb friends are too busy putting up pictures of the meal they had last night rather than talking.
It makes 100% sense. The idea that"How can only 26% identify themselves as Republicans when they get 50% of the vote"
Is a foolish statement and one you have now doubled down on. Fortunately for most people the election is a binary choice. Red or Blue. Independents may be a majority by now. Many are one issue voters or hold their nose voters...etc...
Doesn't mean anything of their support for one party. Even on this thread people like myself say they could consider a conservative except for their stance on social issues.
The Tea Party could have been a much more potent phenomenon had it maintained some level of focus on what it was supposed to be about, which was fiscal responsibility. Instead, it became bloated with the usual socon silliness, which neutered the idea that it was a non-partisan movement and turned it into just a GOP interest group by another name.
Again missing the point. Let me bring you back to the question which was about compromise. DUring the stimulus discussions Obama wanted to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people noting (CORRECTLY) that they did not need them and were not going to help grow the economy.
He eventually COMPROMISED (which you say he never did) to ensure that some stimulus went through,,,
but you're of the belief that government should play as limited a role as humanly possible and in a country as large, diverse, and free as ours, the government absolutely has to oversee A LOT.
Them's the breaks.
You need to get involved and support a libertarian party if you'd like to actually be represented.
As it stands, the GOP was never a strictly libertarian party.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
Romney supported outlawing all abortions. McCain was in favor of prosecuting doctors who had performed abortions. They both are against gay marriage. To most of America these are very conservative stances.
extreme. They tried to strong-arm politicians into taking a pledge to NEVER raise taxes. Good, reasonable politicians lost races because they wouldn't take that dumb pledge. If that's not extreme then I don't know what is.
Obama has lost more congressional seats than any other President. Because of his disastrous policies. Why Dem voters don't also hold him accountable, I have no idea.
It is leading in the government and will likely be the elected. Maybe voting for Trump or Carson or Fiorina is some kind of picket sign you all are putting up but when one of them is not the candidate will you admit that the establishment is alive and well?
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
Quote:
the classic "he told the truth" screw up.
Something Hilary will never have happen.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
They wouldn't have broader appeal, they'd just appeal to different people. They'd lose their base. If you want fiscal conservatives/social liberals, you should be looking at Libertarians, not Republicans
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
Quote:
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
The real problem is the way the spending bills are done. There is not supposed to be one huge spending bill. They do not follow regular order and rely on continuing resolutions.
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
Really? What about the War on Women. They want to be in your bedroom, they want control of your uterus.
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
I think you might have a fb issue more than anything else.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
I think that is why she is now trying to distance herself more from him because it is a lost cause. Biden is running at this point and the WH will be firmly behind him. Everyone knows this so why even pretend anymore. Other than saying I'm a woman so that makes me an outsider too, what big difference was Hillary going to offer from a Biden candidacy?
A mite rich coming from Naked Shorts Boy.
How self immolating would that be?
Kind of like that gold standard of a trade deal that was just negotiated.
Debating this stuff with you becomes pointless if you simply throw out wild statements like that.
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
Quote:
In comment 12534385 Deej said:
Quote:
the classic "he told the truth" screw up.
Something Hilary will never have happen.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
She'll never be accused of being truthful.
And control of their Uterus is not a extreme left viewpoint. It is the current law.
Quote:
In comment 12534545 Samiam said:
Quote:
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Honestly, Eric, you probably don't know what you are talking about when you say "Obama loves the shutdown" or Obama "could give a fuck about the National debt." Both comments suggest clairvoyance.
You only imagine and project what you think about how Obama percieves these issues.
He is very transparent. Although not in the way he promised to be. Do you think he cares about the National Debt? He pretended to when he was a Senator and said that Bush was 'unpatriotic' for have the debt at half of what it is now.
And it is also believed by many to be a big cause of the volatility in foreign markets which then directly impacts and causes high volatility in ours...
Quote:
In comment 12534579 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
In comment 12534558 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
I'm talking about both parties in General, but people keep sliding Obama and Clinton into this.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
Please give examples.
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
I do. Where I live they're actually quite common, and super annoying.
An asshole as he may be, Bill Maher addresses and details their existence pretty regularly and accurately. Sure, usually it's in the defensive, retaliatory context of, "These stupid liberals all freaked out about something I said about Muslims!" But filter a bit of the vitriol out and his points stand -- there are quite a few liberals whose positions seem to be more of a knee-jerk anti status quo reflex than anything else.
And control of their Uterus is not a extreme left viewpoint. It is the current law.
Eric, I should not have to point this out to you. This is just some.
Now, you tell me what have the Republicans done as far as governing?
Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/world/americas/20iht-repubs.1.19516831.html?_r=0
Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124165510131594083
Obama listens to Republicans on health care
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-01-29/news/bal-md.bipartisan29jan29_1_republican-leaders-democrats-rothenberg-political-report
Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html
Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569024-troubling-similarities-between-fiscal-mismanagement-washington-and-mess
R- "We're $18T in debt. We've got to stop printing and spending so much money"
D- "ok, let's compromise at an extra $250B"
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
Supposedly there was a deal that Bill Clinton supported Obama in 2012 (he made a speech at the convention) and Obama was supposed to support Hillary in 2016. But there is no love lost between the Obama's and the Clintons. Did you read 'Blood Fued'? very interesting book.
What I've learned over the years is people vote for Party regardless of who the Party nominates. They say they will keep an open mind, but they really don't.
Are there really any independents? Or is that a self-described designation that makes one feel above messy Party politics?
I think about 10% of the electorate are true independents. I think there are another 10% that vote predominantly for 1 party but, based on specific issues, could switch their vote (i.e. Democrats who voted for Nixon in '72 based on economics or Republicans in '04 who voted for Kerry based on opposition to Iraq). The other 80% are about as locked in as you can get.
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
Got some bad news for you, Greg
They never did represent you.
Quote:
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
Winner. Quote of the day
Quote:
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
Great post.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
I call that being terribly stubborn in sticking to one's outlined principals, but I wouldn't call it "extreme." How is pledging not to raise taxes extreme? (I personally think pledges like that are just for show and dumb).
"The Tea Party" is an umbrella handle...there are all kinds of people who are interested in all kinds of things in it...but the common themes are smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a renewed adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Anti-illegal immigration has seeped into it now, but there are a lot of blue collar Democrats who are anti-illegal immigration too.
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
Is a foolish statement and one you have now doubled down on. Fortunately for most people the election is a binary choice. Red or Blue. Independents may be a majority by now. Many are one issue voters or hold their nose voters...etc...
Doesn't mean anything of their support for one party. Even on this thread people like myself say they could consider a conservative except for their stance on social issues.
He eventually COMPROMISED (which you say he never did) to ensure that some stimulus went through,,,
Them's the breaks.
You need to get involved and support a libertarian party if you'd like to actually be represented.
As it stands, the GOP was never a strictly libertarian party.
Quote:
In comment 12534506 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
Romney supported outlawing all abortions. McCain was in favor of prosecuting doctors who had performed abortions. They both are against gay marriage. To most of America these are very conservative stances.
Obama has lost more congressional seats than any other President. Because of his disastrous policies. Why Dem voters don't also hold him accountable, I have no idea.
It is leading in the government and will likely be the elected. Maybe voting for Trump or Carson or Fiorina is some kind of picket sign you all are putting up but when one of them is not the candidate will you admit that the establishment is alive and well?