Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Sep 5, 2011.
A long read but well worth it. Some highlights.
That article sent chills down my spine.
All the Republican party stands for anymore is the total destruction of the USA.
Starve education and you'll end up with "low-information" voters who are susceptible to right-wing ideologue influence and just keep at it until they believe that government is evil.
That is so sad.
It surely is the case that politicians are terrible. What's sad is that people who vote GOP are looking for politicians to put the reigns on the over-grown train wreck. While instead they are actually getting businessmen who are doing business for themselves, not the american people.
The brilliance of the GOP is consistently convincing people that it is in their best interest to vote against their best interest. Like you say, the lower-/middle-class GOP is fighting for the benefit of the upper-class GOP. I don't know how they do it.
Culture wars and religion.
I agree. An ominous and deeply disturbing article, which contains much depressing food for thought. Thanks, OP, for posting it.
I would love to hear any sort of response from those on the Right, Republicans, or "Tea Partiers", though I doubt we ever will. Speak up, guys! defend your "Grand Olde Party!"
The "Tea Party" moniker loosely refers to the general shift towards small govermnent among grassroots Republicans and independents post the 2008 election. There is no actual Tea Party and there is no formal organizaiton. In a lot of the liberal media, the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann have come to symbolize this fringe of the Republican field, but the Tea Party also has a strong libertarian streak and arguably the movement itself grew out of Ron Paul's bid for the 2008 GOP nomination. This is to say that there is no monolithic Tea Party and that a significant portion of this movement actually actively is addressing these same problems concerning the broken two-party system.
This is by far the biggest issue with politics. Nothing will change until this is solved.
Can't say I disagree with the OP. I like point #2 and couldn't have made that militarism argument any better. A good read.
This is pretty much exactly the way I feel about it.
I've mentioned before on this board about a guy I went to high school with. He's a teacher of some sort. He's had Facebook posts on more than one occasion lamenting the state of education these days and how teachers are now required many times to put in unpaid hours, and often pay for their own classroom supplies because budgets have been cut so much. Then he turns around and openly supports candidates who want to cut education and calling pretty much everything socialism.
Then you have the people who are on some sort of government health care plan rallying against government healthcare.
I truly just don't get it.
The truth is the GOP are masterminds at convincing many people of what they SHOULD think is right. They do this by making claims that make perfect sense on the surface (even I believe this), but only tend to fall apart when you really dig or look at historical realities. These people want to be "right" so they follow this line of thinking without digging.
An artists rendering of the typical Republican voter.
Very scary article. It is in the best interests of the Republican party to make sure that the economy goes completely in the toilet. It would then be blamed on the present administration, and practically guarantee a change at the top. The fact that lives will be destroyed is just a means to an end.
Note: I'm not suggesting that Democrats are totally above political machinations. But the Republican obstructionism is beyond the pale.
The top 2012 Republican candidates are both socially and economically extremist. They're exploiting this recession and the general discontent to gain many, many more votes than they would've ever been able to get under normal circumstances. If things keep going the way they are, the Republican party will have to split in two.
That would be a good thing imo. I think the entrenched two-party system has proven to be a huge liability.
Perhaps control over the great unwashed was lurking in the back of the Founding Father's minds?
What else explain the complex system to ascend to public office.
Too bad they didn't take just a little more from Great Britain at the time.
I agree. A Parliment might be better than what we have now.
I'm not clear if that means that you want more parties, or less.
Progressive Party- Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich
Democratic Party - Bill & Hillary Clinton
Libertarian Party - Gary Johnson
Republican Party - Jon Huntsman, pre-2012-candidate Mitt Romney
Tea Party - Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry
Constitution Party - Ron Paul
Would be good.
Thank you for the explanation, but this is already more than well known. Hence, my putting the words in quotes. Also, it isn't just the 'librool media' that refers to them as such, especially when Princess Palin and Bat**** Bachmann roll up into cities on what THEY call the "Tea Party Express". This isn't something the media has labeled them; this is a name that they use themselves and continue to do so.
Either way, no-one here on the right still has tried to defend this article and what it bespeaks. So I'm still waiting; anyone here on the Right or Conservative, speak up and try to defend the Republicans in lieu of this article!
Agree on this list. Even though I am not a green voter myself, I'd still also like to see a Green Party. However, I don't know who their post Nader figurehead is.
So if Palin changed the sticker on her bus to "The Democratic Express", would that mean she is a Democrat? Yes, Palin and Bachmann are riding the Tea Party wave, but they don't embody the Tea Party, which was my point. I pointed out that there is no Tea Party because frankly it's getting annoying reading articles and hearing this grassroots movement characterized as a structured and formally organized group. The Tea Party is just a collective of activists, that's all.
And why should anyone on the right have to defend this article? It's hardly news that Washington is broken and the author obviously and rightfully attributes this to both parties.
Lessee... multiple rallies, people associated with this movement creating and sponsoring PACs that their preferred candidates utilize and represent... Sounds pretty organized to me
It isn't just "Washington is broken".. This is a scathing article talking about the ideologies of the current Republican party that are broken, especailly among the "Tea Partiers", and most of those on the Conservative Right. For example:
"There is too much government"... when one of the biggest expansions of government was made by a Republican President and Republican Congress.
"no <insert idea here> until the budget is cut"... When a suplus is blown and debt is created by a Republic President and Republican Congress, with a Republican Vice President making statements such as "Reagan (another Republican President) proved that deficits don't matter!
"<insert natural disaster here> is a message from God to cut the budget", and that "we are going through an orgy of spending"... when the Republican making those statements went to the well they chastized 9 times.
There are many more examples that could be added here.
To me, and to a lot of others here, the principles and ideologies of the Republican Party are very misguided, full of hypocrisy, severely lacking both integrity and character, and are absolutely NOTHING reminiscent of the GOP of old (pre-Eisenhower). If he could, Roosevelt would come back from his grave, and slap each one of the current Reds in Congress upside the head with the big stick he referred to.
Personally, to me, the Grand Olde Party died with Eisenhower.
So like I said.. I'm still waiting for someone to defend the current Republican Party's ideas and ideologies against this article. To the rest of the country (and the world), it looks like you're letting the bat**** crazies run the asylum.
The problem with two huge parties is that it is very difficult to achieve anything that resembles ideological constraint across the membership. I am sure many of the Tea Partiers would prefer to break away from the mainstream GOP (and I am sure many mainstream Republicans would love this as well) but the way the two parties have divided the country between themselves, it is practically impossible for a third party to challenge the status quo and hence these new grassroots Tea Party people infiltrate the GOP instead. I am just surprised that you expect a party to behave like a rational, single-minded organism. The GOP is a mess and their lineup for 2012 is lacklustre at best, which I said in a previous post that this is Obamas election to lose.
Also, the notion that W Bush turned a surplus into a deficit actually isn't true. Clinton never had a real surplus: the total national debt increased every year during his administration. The "surplus" was created by the excess contributions to Social Security fueled by the IT bubble. This means the SSA lent more money to the government which, in turn, didn't have to rely on borrowing from the public to the same extent as before (this is reflected in the decrease of the public debt during Clinton's administration).
I disagree about the Tea Party. Its adherents are for all intents and purposes Republicans who are trying desperately to eighty-six the legacy of George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons while still running through the same goat-rope of ideology that made him such a viable candidate in 2000 and 2004.
I think you're right. The GOP's choices are either uninspiring orI hopeunelectable.
Sure, it was an accounting trick, but it was one in the positive direction. This is different, IMHO, than Bush's use of off the books funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which made his budgets appear less egregious than they actually were.