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

[The Barbarian]

What ever happened to the idealist concept that imperfect people should strive to perfect their behaviors ... and for the masses to expect it of them and hold them accountable?

It's like "no child left behind." No sane person thinks that will ever actually happen, unless we drop standards so low that any child of any condition can pass them. But it's a fine goal to work toward, even if perfection will never be achieved. So we have to learn to content ourselves with picking the least objectionable of candidates.

Have you just given up Barbarian?

I expect people will misuse power if they get it. I'm disappointed, but not surprised that Obama continued many of Bush's policies. Note the IRS scandal; how is this different than Bush's policy of using the IRS to target liberal groups?

Maybe Obama didn't know; I have no reason to suspect he did. But he should have known, and he certainly should have made it clear from the start that things were not going to be "business as usual."

 

[The Barbarian]

Which Taft? Robert or William Howard?

Robert. W.H. Taft was more open to governmental activism. He was big on restricting unfair business practices, and he greatly increased the power of the interstate Commerce Commission.

To solve an impasse during the 1909 tariff debate, Taft proposed income taxes for corporations and a constitutional amendment to remove the apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes from property (taxes on dividends, interest, and rents), on June 16, 1909.[60] His proposed tax on corporate net income was 1% on net profits over $5,000. It was designated an excise on the privilege of doing business as a corporation whose stockholders enjoyed the privilege of limited liability, and not a tax on incomes as such. In 1911, the Supreme Court, in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., upheld the tax. Receipts grew from $21 million in the fiscal year 1910 to $34.8 million in 1912.

In July 1909, a proposed amendment to allow the federal government to tax incomes was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 318 to 14 in the House. It was quickly ratified by the states, and on February 3, 1913, it became a part of the Constitution as the Sixteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft



I don't see how Eisenhower was a "Centrist" at all, but maybe that's just because I'm so far (Economically, anyhow) to the right. But the man had a freaking top marginal rate of ninety-one percent, and his only difference from the democrats is that he wanted to run social democracy more efficiently. How is that "Centrist?"




I don't ultimately disagree with you that you can't get all the way to 0%. But we can get way closer than we are right now, and anything to move in that direction is a good thing, IMO.


I seriously doubt very many people want your particular brand of "Far-right." Granted, the people don't want what I want either, and I freely acknowledge that, but I'm not pretending I agree with the majority. The majority, unfortunately, supports socialism...[/QUOTE]

 

[Christian Liberty]

Robert. W.H. Taft was more open to governmental activism. He was big on restricting unfair business practices, and he greatly increased the power of the interstate Commerce Commission.

To solve an impasse during the 1909 tariff debate, Taft proposed income taxes for corporations and a constitutional amendment to remove the apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes from property (taxes on dividends, interest, and rents), on June 16, 1909.[60] His proposed tax on corporate net income was 1% on net profits over $5,000. It was designated an excise on the privilege of doing business as a corporation whose stockholders enjoyed the privilege of limited liability, and not a tax on incomes as such. In 1911, the Supreme Court, in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., upheld the tax. Receipts grew from $21 million in the fiscal year 1910 to $34.8 million in 1912.

In July 1909, a proposed amendment to allow the federal government to tax incomes was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 318 to 14 in the House. It was quickly ratified by the states, and on February 3, 1913, it became a part of the Constitution as the Sixteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft



I don't see how Eisenhower was a "Centrist" at all, but maybe that's just because I'm so far (Economically, anyhow) to the right. But the man had a freaking top marginal rate of ninety-one percent, and his only difference from the democrats is that he wanted to run social democracy more efficiently. How is that "Centrist?"




I don't ultimately disagree with you that you can't get all the way to 0%. But we can get way closer than we are right now, and anything to move in that direction is a good thing, IMO.


I seriously doubt very many people want your particular brand of "Far-right." Granted, the people don't want what I want either, and I freely acknowledge that, but I'm not pretending I agree with the majority. The majority, unfortunately, supports socialism...

[/QUOTE]

I'm much more inclined to agree with Robert being a centrist than either William Howard or Eisenhower, but I would also agree that Eisenhower was closer to the "Middle" than W.H. Taft.

I could go for a GOP that was more like Robert Taft. An Eisenhower would probably do well in elections (And so would fit the question) but he was too much of a big government person for me to actually support him. He was way better than the modern GOP (Eisenhower actually feared the military-industrial complex, modern Republicans openly embrace it) but still a bit too "Pro-governennt" for me personally. But then, I'm nowhere near the center either. But I MUCH prefer Robert Taft to Eisenhower.

 

[Ps82]

It's like "no child left behind." No sane person thinks that will ever actually happen, unless we drop standards so low that any child of any condition can pass them. But it's a fine goal to work toward, even if perfection will never be achieved. So we have to learn to content ourselves with picking the least objectionable of candidates.



I expect people will misuse power if they get it. I'm disappointed, but not surprised that Obama continued many of Bush's policies. Note the IRS scandal; how is this different than Bush's policy of using the IRS to target liberal groups?

Maybe Obama didn't know; I have no reason to suspect he did. But he should have known, and he certainly should have made it clear from the start that things were not going to be "business as usual."

He certainly should have. I'm not sure which is worse ... a sly leader or a clueless leader?

 

[Yorzhik]

In other words, "get a bigger hammer so that it won't hurt when you hit yourself on the head with it."

You must realize you are saying that being democrat-lite is a small hammer, and being conservative is a big hammer. Your solution to become democrat-heavy makes no sense at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

You must realize you are saying that being democrat-lite is a small hammer

Exactly. Pretending to support what the average American values while actually seeking to undermine it, that's the small hammer. Openly disparaging American values, that's the big hammer.

The country needs a right-center party, not a something slowly fractioning into a regional party appealing only to extremists.

If the republicans don't move to the center, some other party will form to do it, and the republicans will go the way of the Whigs.

 

[Ps82]

Exactly. Pretending to support what the average American values while actually seeking to undermine it, that's the small hammer. Openly disparaging American values, that's the big hammer.

The country needs a right-center party, not a something slowly fractioning into a regional party appealing only to extremists.

If the republicans don't move to the center, some other party will form to do it, and the republicans will go the way of the Whigs.

Watered down, luke warm ... compromised citizens. Now that just sounds great ... NOT!

Joshua said something like this: As for me and my house we will worship the LORD.

People must stand for something or they will fall for anything ...
If being a radical means that I stand for God/the LORD and his will on earth and for freedom (as much as possible in this world) from the oppression of the powerful... then I am proud to be known as a radical in your eyes.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 31st, 2013 05:00 AM

toldailytopic: What adjustments will the Republican party need to make if they are to be successful in the 2016 Presidential Election?

Go full conservative. They will never get re-elected if they do not.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is no longer possible to win a national election from the extreme right. Even with gerrymandered electoral vote districts, the numbers just aren't there for you.

Notice that the republicans used redistricting again to maximize their chances of winning, and they still lost house seats. In the long run, you can't win national elections or even statewide elections by advocating policies unpopular with voters.

 

[resurrected]

Should our leaders lead us into a society with better morals?

Or should our representatives represent our baser natures?

 

[bybee]

It is no longer possible to win a national election from the extreme right. Even with gerrymandered electoral vote districts, the numbers just aren't there for you.

Notice that the republicans used redistricting again to maximize their chances of winning, and they still lost house seats. In the long run, you can't win national elections or even statewide elections by advocating policies unpopular with voters.

The power of public opinion is like a juggernaut, unstoppable it would seem.
Just look at the amoral toadies who comprise most of this administration. No one is responsible for anything untoward or harmful. No one in a position of authority has any idea of what is going on. They get to lie to Congress with impunity. An Ambassador is slaughtered under their watch and we still can't get the actual facts of the event.
We are in a downward spiral as a nation. And it is because the people in power are relativist/humanists and don't really espouse anything of value, except of course "Here! let me put my hands in your pockets and take everything you have worked for and give it away!"
Their bottom line is like an Anaconda slithering it's way through the Everglades and consuming everything in it's path!
When there is nothing left to feed on then what?

 

[The Barbarian]

Should our leaders lead us into a society with better morals?

I notice our "leaders" tend to have worse morals than the rest of us. Instead of looking to our politicians for moral guidance, we should hold them accountable to it.

Or should our representatives represent our baser natures?

That is precisely why the republicans are in the shape they are, right now.

A little idealism and some "our nation's best interests first" thinking would go a long way to curing what ails them.

 

[resurrected]

I notice our "leaders" tend to have worse morals than the rest of us. Instead of looking to our politicians for moral guidance, we should hold them accountable to it.

That's not an answer to my question.

That is precisely why the republicans are in the shape they are, right now.

A little idealism and some "our nation's best interests first" thinking would go a long way to curing what ails them.

I doubt it.

Pandering to the lowest instincts has been successful for the Democrats.

What makes you think the opposite would aid the Republicans?

 

[The Barbarian]

The power of public opinion is like a juggernaut, unstoppable it would seem.

At least as regards elections.

Just look at the amoral toadies who comprise most of this administration.

I don't think they are much better, if any, than the previous one, in terms of morals. In general, a successful politician has to make a lot of moral compromises to be successful. And we severely punish those who don't.

No one is responsible for anything untoward or harmful.

It is the nature of politicians to claim anything good, and to shift blame for anything bad. In that sense, the current administration is no different from those that preceded it.

No one in a position of authority has any idea of what is going on.

At least not when something bad happens. Nothing new there, either.

They get to lie to Congress with impunity.

That's a riskier thing. If you think that the House republicans would miss a chance to file a perjury charge at an administration official, I'd say you were being unrealistic. They just can't find a case right now.

An Ambassador is slaughtered under their watch and we still can't get the actual facts of the event.

The House republicans would disagree with you. They have several different scenarios they swear are true. Some of them mutually impossible.

We are in a downward spiral as a nation.

It seems not so. More and more of us (a majority now) are pro-life. Violence is very much down from even a decade ago. More people report that God is a major factor in their lives. And economically, things are looking up.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is no longer possible to win a national election from the extreme right. Even with gerrymandered electoral vote districts, the numbers just aren't there for you.

More and more of us (a majority now) are pro-life. Violence is very much down from even a decade ago. More people report that God is a major factor in their lives. And economically, things are looking up.

:chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian oberves:
I notice our "leaders" tend to have worse morals than the rest of us. Instead of looking to our politicians for moral guidance, we should hold them accountable to it.

That's not an answer to my question.

I'll be more explicit; you are making an error when you assume our "leaders" can lead us into a more moral state. It's not the function of government, and for a good reason; it doesn't work.

Barbarian observes:
That is precisely why the republicans are in the shape they are, right now.

A little idealism and some "our nation's best interests first" thinking would go a long way to curing what ails them.

I doubt it.

Worth a try. Cynicism and "what's best for my friends only" didn't do so well, did it?

Pandering to the lowest instincts has been successful for the Democrats.

I watched that happen in the 60s. It was a disaster.

What makes you think the opposite would aid the Republicans?

Worked for the democrats.

 

[resurrected]

I'll be more explicit; you are making an error when you assume our "leaders" can lead us into a more moral state. It's not the function of government, and for a good reason; it doesn't work.

Of course they can.

We can elect leaders who will make moral choices or we can elect leaders who are untrained inexperienced novelty acts. Or worse, self-serving opportunistic liars.

Worked for the democrats.

Only if you believe the democrats put our nation's best interests first.


I struggle to believe you're retarded enough to fall for that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I'll be more explicit; you are making an error when you assume our "leaders" can lead us into a more moral state. It's not the function of government, and for a good reason; it doesn't work.

Of course they can.

If you think so, you're a lot more gullible than you appear to be.

We can elect leaders who will make moral choices

We should elect leaders who will make good decisions that affect the country positively. Asking them to be moral paragons as well, is asking too much.

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.
Lord Acton

or we can elect leaders who are untrained inexperienced novelty acts.

Turns out Herman Cain wasn't exactly the moral leader you want. So he never got a chance.

Or worse, self-serving opportunistic liars.

Romney let too much of that show before the election. Voters are tolerant of lying by candidates, but not that tolerant.

Perhaps you were unaware that political office attracts self-serving opportunistic liars. And we punish any politician who isn't.

Worked for the democrats.

Only if you believe the democrats put our nation's best interests first.

When a democrat president cuts the federal civilian payroll to 1960s levels, and says "the era of big government is over", one thinks something other than self-interest is driving him, given the nature of most democrat voters.

Just saying.

I struggle to believe you're retarded enough to fall for that.

You know, conclusions from evidence... the usual. BTW, it's nice that you've changed enough that we can have a conversation again.

Well done.

 

[resurrected]

No, I haven't changed

I still find you the same odious buffoon as before.


I just got tired of smacking Town around and thought I'd take a turn at you.

 

[99lamb]

First rule - never let the opposition define you.
then don't take advise from a Leftist Liberal on ways you need to be more electable.