Republican party is DEAD, the members are desperately holding on to Reagan dream

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Mar 25, 2016.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Republican party is DEAD, the members are desperately holding on to Reagan dream

    My observations is Republican supporters are made up of laissez-faire idealist and strongly religious evangelical groups.
    But the trouble is the two types are not truly compatible.

    Evangelical types are all about religion guiding the morality of the nation to the point that the nation must pass laws that support religious doctrine (even if that doctrine is not actually biblical!! :eek:)

    Laissez-faire (liken to Libertarian) is hands off, guide by own fate, individual, government-get-out-of-here, but while they may share the same religious beliefs as Evangelical, they do not support nor approve government efforts to enforce religious doctrine.
    I believe they are also fiscally conservative, as again the focus is local or individual financial responsibility (while Evangelical would spend tax money to support religious efforts).

    This schism has existed for decades but the last 15 years has made it more and more pronounced, one reason is growing distrust between the factions due to rigid stance on issues the other side feels can be adjusted (not critical for party doctrine)

    What keeps the party to mostly stick together is nostalgia for the Reagan (and Bush 1) days when the US saw excellent growth (at the cost of high deficits) and victory of the Soviets, the most fundamental enemy of American (in every way). How many times has the Reagan era been mentioned? Rarely is JFK, Eisenhower, or either of the Roosevelt (Democrat and Republican) mentioned.

    Today:
    What is happening now is the laissez-faire Libertarian group have a champion in Trump who they believe is truly Hands-Off, small government candidate. This desire for such a candidate is so strong that Trump can do no wrong they vocally support him regardless of what he says or does.
    That is why he is so popular, he represents appeals directly to core individual beliefs, and why pundits don't understand because they insist politics must always be a group consensus (which history proves is not true at all!)

    Meanwhile the Evangelical voters support the one they think is the most fundamentalist, that consensus be damned, it must be done by the (yet to be written parts of) the bible or to hell with you! Thus Cruz support.
    After all, like many preachers, they speak fire and brimstone even when what they attempt (replacing lost limbs, giving sight to eyeless people) is political impossible no matter how many times they try.

    This conflict has grown to the point that reason (Kasich) drowned as the emotional factions battle for the right to be called "Republican".


    In your comments, find the big picture.
    Trump and Cruz is only the symptom of what is happening to the conservative moment, which fly under the "Republican" banner.
     
  2. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #2
    They are so dead that they hold the majority in congress and senate.
    And those who you describe in that post that you took from someone else are the loudmouth minority. You have the same thing on the left where the most craziest are the loudest.
     
  3. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #3
    You see, you completely miss the obvious.

    Locally there are strong pockets of evangelical or libertarian, and enough of the either faction side works with other to carry the local elections.


    On the national side, you start seeing the rifts occur.
    That is why House has more "Republican" membership (by %), while the Senate is less so.


    I also believe why Romney failed so miserably in 2012. He had Evangelical support, but not the Libertarian support.

    While they may call themselves Republican, there is no unifying substance behind it.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 25, 2016 ---
    Cant recall what post you are talking about.

    The left is a different, but they have their own arguments, for sure.
     
  4. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #4
    Romney lost because he didn't have the support of the true conservatives. Conservatives are tired of the GOP running RINOs and Democrat-lites.
     
  5. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #5
    RINO is basically one conservative being critical of another conservative (which can be Libertarian vs Evangelical).
    Elected officials make choices for whats best in his district, or no be reelected.
    If that choice is not in the "Republican" handbook, then he is labeled a RINO.
     
  6. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    Terms like "RINO" are the precise reason why the party is dying, no true Scotsman and all that. Funny part is they STILL don't get it. I'm enjoying the show though.
     
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    One down, one to go.
     
  8. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8

    Source??
     
  9. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #9
    So they now vote for the biggest RINO of them all? Someone who is literally the very definition of the word? Makes no sense.

    Romney lost because of the 47% comment in addition to changing demographics that the Republican Party has refused to do much reaching out to. But they are real good at demonizing people. Hence the lost votes and missed opportunities in national elections.
     
  10. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    I also look forward for the Democrats to also break up.

    I said in OP.

    Observations on various news media over the years and opinion formalized.


    What is a Republican?
    Ask an Evangelical or Libertarian, the will give you different answers, and then say the other is RINO.
    Cruz is as much a RINO as Trump and Rubio.
    Some will say Kasich is a RINO even though he is more mainstream establishment.
    Romney could also be called RINO because of his passage of a gun law and RomneyCare.

    Yes, that is part of it, but that demographic change is also the beliefs IMHO.
    At my work I know hard core Republicans who are Libertarian and bristle at some of the Evangelical actions in party (not as much as Democratic/Obama actions).
     
  11. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #11
    But Trump is in a whole other league. He literally was a Democrat not that long ago. He has given money to the right's mortal enemies...people like Nancy Pelosi. He has outwardly said that he is liberal on healthcare (still). He has hobnobbed with the Clintons, has cheated on his wife and had three of them, and yet a great many Republicans are falling all over themselves to vote for him anyway, flushing all their previous stated principles and beliefs right down the toilet in the process. It's bizarre.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    Let the GOP burn. Democrats are next I hope
     
  13. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #13
    Because anarchy works so well? We can't have both parties in a state of flux. It would be chaos.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    I'm fine with killing them one at a time :D
     
  15. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #15
    The GOP is split because they didn't stand up as they said they would. They made promises they didn't keep. They chickened out on standing up. Passed budgets they shouldn't have, and many other examples.

    The Right votes made the Tea Party and that was in response to the lack of following thru on promises.

    The Left is also split, Bernie and Hillary are very different and the voters of each don't like each other.

    Both parties are very divided, but the Right actually wants to break the power hold of Washington, whereas the Left doesn't want it bad enough. The Left is willing to go with one of the biggest Washington insiders, where the Right won't do that.

    The Right is willing to go with 4 years of Hillary gridlock just to make an important point to it's reps.
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    GOP. Only has social conservatives, all the fiscal ones are long gone and those who scream about it are fake, like Ryan
     
  17. APlotdevice, Mar 26, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2016

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #17
    History suggests that our particular government needs two parties to be stable anyway. When the Whig Federalist party collapsed, sharp divisions formed within the Democratic-Republican Party.
     
  18. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #18
    I tend to think Trump and the Whigs are related somehow.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19

    Yes the Right does appear competely willing to forego the White House yet again.

    The important point that it wants to make to its representatives is... um... when not appealing to broad enough potential electorate, ignore that fact and try again in four years? Rinse, repeat, time goes by?

    I think the GOP leadership is about to try to kiss that idea off and rip the far right out of the party. Its demographic base needs to be widened, not narrowed. I'm not sure they can get past the stupidity of thinking they can win by tightening voter registration laws, etc. But at least they've got evidence on hand that their presidential candidates don't appeal even to the shreds of their own electorate.

    When you get a leading candidate in the primary races who has insulted more than half the potential voters of the country, you do not have a winning recipe for the general election. And of course you run the risk of that candidate having negative coattails in the House and Senate races as well. The GOP has the Freedom Caucus in its sights right about now, by default and probable funds starvation. They are focused on the Senate races at all costs in 2016.

    The Tea Party doesn't seem to understand they exist in a representative democracy. How that works is propose ideas, explain them, try to rally support for legislation, get the bill through committee and onto the floor, take the vote, abide by results, pass bill to Senate if successful. Nowhere in there is "repeal the ACA another dozen times even if cannot get Senate to buy it." Nowhere in there is "shut down the government if unhappy about content of proposed legislation". One more round of that stuff (which is starting to tick off more and more American voters) and the Teas will get drummed out of the party by 2018 even if the party doesn't implode this year.

    The Democrats in Congress are more cohesive, so far. It's true Sanders has probably emboldened the progressives in the House for the 2017-18 term. Time will tell if they follow the example of the Freedom Caucus or continue to try to work within the party proper to get more of their ideas into legislation. The Dems learned a lot from the chaos of the 1972 convention and the years that followed in Congress. So far as I can tell, the Tea Party hasn't learned a damn thing by throwing hissy fits that the government they swore to uphold (but also promised to strangle) still exists.
     
  20. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #20
    Reagan by all accounts was a terrible President. People always talk about how great he was but they can never detail why.
     
  21. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21
    Reagan was a great president, and Republicans are not interested in conservative values, so they really don't giver a hoot about Reagan. A true conservative is the antithesis of what the Republican party wants.
     
  22. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #22
    Morning in America... "reality distortion field" on steroids
     
  23. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #23
    One problem with the Republican party is that they don't have kids like Dems do. Also, most of the immigrants don't go with the Republican party. They don't want to be inclusive because they want to go a different direction. They don't like the direction the nation is going.

    When you mix socialism and capitalism, socialism always ends up winning. This is why nations end up failing over time. The capitalist end up leaving and the system goes broke. We're at the point where the numbers just don't work anymore. There's really no chance of ever getting this economy to work again. Too much debt, too high of a cost of living. Too much free trade with lower cost of living nations that need jobs and will work cheap.

    The only way to fix the system is to let the socialist win every thing, and that's the path we're on. Once they have free college, free health care, free housing and lower paying jobs, it's just a matter of time when the debt comes down and crushes everything.

    At that point, the government comes in a controls everything, and that's the ultimate solution for the socialist. The capitalist go wherever the next capitalist nation is or now they have the option of going completely digital, where assets are held in block-chain, bitcoin type storage or IP. The rich will become ultra rich and everyone else will have government controlled, low paying jobs that can be replaced with robots.

    The population will continue to rise, and they'll run out of resources while wondering what went wrong. It's really too late to change directions at this point, too much debt to ever fix things.

    At least if Hillary wins, she'll have to own what happens. Once they get everything they want, we'll at least see what America would look like as a socialist nation.
     
  24. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #24
    Define "RINO" please.
     
  25. thermodynamic, Mar 26, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2016

    thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    Except most Democrats never saw Romney once as being a Democrat-lite. Otherwise they wouldn't have voted for more of the same (Democrat-lite, based on compromises Obama has signed. The blogs suggesting Obama is "Reagan's 9th term" are interesting to read as well.)
    --- Post Merged, Mar 26, 2016 ---
    Dang. And people are going to miss well kept roads, police, fire, military, and lots of other things government invented on its own or in tandem with corporations... even corporate welfare is claimed to help reduce costs...

    Sanders is a "Democratic-Socialist" whose record has more in common with Eisenhower than Marx.

    The market has decided the value of work. Don't blame government for low-paying jobs, especially after 35 years of deregulation, greatly reduced union participation, an so on. Those excuses of scapegoating government have been long gone.

    Also, Sanders has spelled out time and again how tax money will be used to pay for things. They are not free. How can people not understand this??

    Despite all the deregulation?

    And, once again, you are trying to scapegoat government where - after all the deregulation and increased corporate welfare spending because the corporations threaten to move offshore (despite having done so time and again to cash in with bigger profit, which is not sustainable and on many levels...)

    Unless you are saying government is becoming an oligarchic plutocracy instead of a democratic republic...

    And, please, use proper grammar. It sickens me to think that those unionized liberal lazy public school teachers that teach today's kids don't know the difference between singular and plural terms, and I've read nothing that suggests the US is attempting to adopt the UK (and its territories, former or otherwise) even greater inconsistent use of the language.

    Is this the same Hillary who was on Walmart's board of directors way back when? Or working with other countries' consultant firms like TCS to offshore jobs? India is said to be a Democratic nation, not a Socialist one. So she works with Democracies. And what's so bad about China if it can build a middle class while developed ones lose theirs? Communism obviously can't be so bad if their participants' lives are improving and their companies prosper...

    You also assume Hillary will become president despite the current polls (it's too early to tell, and a poll representing 1000 people cannot represent 150000000 eligible voters, period), much less do all the supposition-driven ideas you're apparently scared about. The past is not the present and she, like anybody, can be misled (she apologized for Iraq, and a lot of us bought into it or were skeptical - at least until the evidence started coming out.)

    Lastly, there is a difference. Try "corporatist" instead of "socialist", since that's closer to the definition.
     

Share This Page