toldailytopic: What adjustments will the Republican party need to make if they are to

[The Barbarian]

Where do you live?

Texas.

Edit: I know what you're thinking. But you have to remember, that in Texas for a very long time, politicians were the only reliable source of entertainment.

 

[Nick M]

That's like saying that it hurts when you hit yourself on the head with a hammer, because you aren't using a big enough hammer.

Go to hell, barbie you faggot lover. Nothing but lies comes from your tongue. I can hardly wait until you are punished.

IK is right, and inline with what Rush said. The party is sliding left because the country is immoral and sliding left. To win, they need to have a contrast to the DNC. They will not have it will the likes of people they are pushing. And John Boehner showed he wants no part of conservatism, and only wants liberalism in America.

Fake vote

 

[Christian Liberty]

Come back to America. In as many ways possible. Rush Limbaugh admitted in a fit of honesty, “We are outnumbered and we are losing ground. This was not a glitch. This is the trend. That happened last night. This is the trend. We are outnumbered. Whether you want to put it in terms of, ‘Have we lost the country or not?’ There’s no other explanation.”

The answer is not to blame America for not buying what you want to sell. The answer is to figure out what it is about republican ideas that are good for America, and sell those.

Hint: it's not about tax cuts for the rich, and it's not about hating homosexuals. And it sure isn't about becoming the democrats; one left-center party is plenty. It's about becoming American, again. It's about becoming a right-center party that can rule without gerrymandered congressional districts. As good an idea as that seemed at the time (and it worked; we'll probably see republican majorities in the House a few more election cycles, even if most voters go democrat, as happened last time) it is part of the thinking that led the party into the current debacle.

What would your Republican Party look like?

Would you consider cutting taxes in general (ie, on everybody) to be equivalent to "Cutting taxes on the rich"? Or are you singling out tax cuts that only help the rich?

I'm good with any tax cut on anyone that brings the rate closer to 0%.

They might want to stop cracking wise about rape, for one thing.

Honestly, this is the single stupidest reason NOT to vote Republican, and there are many. If you can't stomach candidates who won't allow abortion in case of rape, that's one thing, but to decide your vote on the basis of a gaffe is ridiculous, IMO. I have no idea what Todd Akin's platform was, if it was anything like the average Republican, I wouldn't have voted for him, but that would be because of the positions he would likely hold on national security, drugs, the Patriot Act, and other issues, not because of the gaffe.

For the record, just so everyone is clear, I personally do not believe abortion should be legal in case of rape. Understanding a position does not corrolate with agreeing with it.

They might want to stop with their racial tokenism. One Latino and one black guy here and there does not racial diversity make.

Who cares what race people are? Period? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, or what you would advise them to change.

They might want to stop acting, and talking, like crazy, demented, out-of-touch lunatics who appeal to no one but an increasingly small and isolated amen corner.

They might stop acting like anti-intellectual buffoons disinterested in facts or reality.

This is really vague.

First, let evangelicals walk. If they want to start their own party, fine. Evangelicals hijacked the GOP in the Seventies and in large part have run the party right into the ground.

"Evangelicals" is a rather broad group. I almost sound like a broken record when I say it on other forums, but not all Evangelicals have the same political views. There are far too many of them on "Team R", but its certainly not all of them. I'm a libertarian evangelical, and believe it or not (Even though I don't really understand why anyone would go this route) evangelicals in the Democratic Party.

Support gay marriage (or at least support the right of states to decide the issue)

Tactically speaking, "State's rights" is probably the smartest strategy. The vast majority of hardcore conservatives would probably let this go if the alternative was a candidate who supported national SSM. Constitutionalists, whether they be conservative (As they often are), or not can get behind this stance. There are exceptions, but the majority of libertarians are decentralists, and don't really want any government involvement in marriage anyway, and even those that do believe government recognized SSM is a lesser evil generally do not care all that much about it compared with other issues. Personally I care very little about this issue from a legal standpoint, and I wouldn't discount any candidate for any (At least "Reasonable", I consider the Christian theocrat "Stone them" to be outside the realm of "A position on gay marriage) position they held on this particular issue.

Regardless of your personal opinions of the issue as well, the constitution dictates that this is a state level issue. I guess you can ask them to "Support gay marriage" if you want (That's going to kill them politically, but you can try) but I would hope the GOP would respect the tenth amendment at least.

This isn't really the issue that gets me passionate about politics though. As long as they leave the churches alone, I really don't care what our immoral State recognizes marriage as. Its what you start saying two quotes from now that gets me really passionate about politics, and why I cannot currently support the GOP...

and force the Christians out. Fewer and fewer people care what they think anyway.

"Christians" is an even broader category, and covers a solid 80% or more of the country. Good luck with that.

I assume that by "Christians" you probably meant "Theocrats" but that's not what you said.

Next, oppose American imperialism and demand an end to drone strikes, pre-emptive and illegal wars, and the empire building in the Middle East. Enough is enough.

THIS is my biggest problem with the Republican Party.

Third, end this foolish War on Terror and nip the burgeoning police state in the bud.

This is another big problem with the Republican Party.

Fourth, end the equally inane War on Drugs, and really deal the police state a death blow.

BINGO!

Your username and your avatar picture show that you are confused.

I know the avatar is Ron Paul, not Rand, if that's what you're saying. Maybe I'm confusing other people, but I'm aware. I prefer Ron over Rand anyway, but I really don't see Ron Paul running again in 2016.

That's like saying that it hurts when you hit yourself on the head with a hammer, because you aren't using a big enough hammer.

That is part of what the Republican party needs to change.

They lost the election in '08 because they put forth a candidate that was too far away from the conservative base's desires.

Their answer in '12 was to put forth a candidate that so far from the conservative base's desires that he made the '08 candidate look conservative in comparison.

When the choice is between two candidates with the exact same platform, the incumbent will always win.

The Republican party should try something new, and put forth a conservative candidate, to give the voters a real choice.

What do you define as "Conservative"? Paleoconservative or Neoconservative, or something else? The word "Conservative" was basically destroyed by the Bushes so I need to know what you're talking about. Granted, I swing libertarian but I like real (paleo)conservatives WAY better than the fakers in the GOP...

Go to hell, barbie you faggot lover. Nothing but lies comes from your tongue. I can hardly wait until you are punished.

I can't believe you would wish that kind of punishment on anybody. That's immoral.

IK is right, and inline with what Rush said. The party is sliding left because the country is immoral and sliding left. To win, they need to have a contrast to the DNC. They will not have it will the likes of people they are pushing. And John Boehner showed he wants no part of conservatism, and only wants liberalism in America.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, pretty much, but that's what you want too. Research the roots of neoconservatism. They come from the left, as do you.

 

[The Berean]

I think a better idea would be to ban all political parties. :think: Political parties are magnets for corruption.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Or just not label them on the ballot, and require people to know something substantial about the candidate they are voting for.

 

[Brother Vinny]

The best thing that could happen to the GOP right now is Daleks. Might be good for the Dems, too.

 

[resurrected]

one problem is that people think that paying a little bit of attention to the races and voting is all the involvement that's necessary

after I move I plan to get involved in politics at the local level and make sure my voice is heard not only at election time but all year, every year

 

[PureX]

I think a better idea would be to ban all political parties. :think: Political parties are magnets for corruption.

It's not the parties, it's the political power that invites corruption. We basically only have token parties, now. But they're all bribed up, regardless of party. Until we put a stop to the legalized bribery of our legislators, nothing else is fixable. And I don't even know if that possible, at this point.

 

[sky.]

Biblical discernment on the part of the voters.

 

[Traditio]

The Republicans are commonly seen as:

1. Anti-science (because of their position on global warming).
2. As being in the pockets of the corporate elite and the very wealthy (and thus having interests directly at odds with the middle and lower classes).
3. As being extremely backwards when it comes to things like immigration.
4. As being warmongers.

And they're not even necessarily towing the "traditional values" thing as much as they used to and should be.

If the Republicans want to have any credibility and any relevence in the future political arena, they need to change these things.

 

[The Berean]

Or just not label them on the ballot, and require people to know something substantial about the candidate they are voting for.

Most voters are don't really think that deeply about elections. If a voter belongs to a particular political party they will just vote for their party's candidate.

 

[sky.]

The Republicans are commonly seen as:

1. Anti-science (because of their position on global warming).
2. As being in the pockets of the corporate elite and the very wealthy (and thus having interests directly at odds with the middle and lower classes).
3. As being extremely backwards when it comes to things like immigration.
4. As being warmongers.

And they're not even necessarily towing the "traditional values" thing as much as they used to and should be.

If the Republicans want to have any credibility and any relevence in the future political arena, they need to change these things.

Right and the catholics know what is best because they favor the king of the government from their inception. And don't forget..."we are supposed to get our children high"

Hail Caesar!!! the mystical king.

 

[Delmar]

The Republican party should try something new, and put forth a conservative candidate, to give the voters a real choice.

The party power brokers will not allow that to happen. There is at least a 50/50 chance that the GOP is done.

 

[sky.]

The party power brokers will not allow that to happen. There is at least a 50/50 chance that the GOP is done.

And I don't blame them. I blame the lazy Christians. What are they supposed to do, fight the wave of government and church?

 

[Traditio]

Right and the catholics know what is best because they favor the king of the government from their inception. And don't forget..."we are supposed to get our children high"

Hail Caesar!!! the mystical king.

I never said this. If you are a Christian, sky, you should be on gaurd against 1. bearing false witness against your neighbor and 2. seeking to injure your neighbor in thought, word and deed. Remember that Christ says that we will be held accountable for every idle word.

 

[sky.]

I never said this. If you are a Christian, sky, you should be on gaurd against 1. bearing false witness against your neighbor and 2. seeking to injure your neighbor in thought, word and deed. Remember that Christ says that we will be held accountable for every idle word.

Nope, you seek to injure the intent and purposes of Christ and you are very transparent . Go get the children you seek to get high and tell them to "eat Christ" .

 

[Delmar]

And I don't blame them. I blame the lazy Christians. What are they supposed to do, fight the wave of government and church?

Why blame the wicked?

 

[sky.]

Why blame the wicked?

Really?

 

[The Barbarian]

What would your Republican Party look like?

Center-right. Eisenhower, Taft. That sort.

Would you consider cutting taxes in general (ie, on everybody) to be equivalent to "Cutting taxes on the rich"? Or are you singling out tax cuts that only help the rich?

I figure everyone should put in a fair share. A flat rate, if there was some way of locking out finagles to cut the effective rate, would be O.K. with me.

I'm good with any tax cut on anyone that brings the rate closer to 0%.

I wish my mortgage had been at a 0% rate, but for some reason, that wasn't possible.

I see your point, I'm just not as far as you are.

 

[joshhuntnm]

My username should answer the question.

haha. that is funny. good choice!