Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't want to say it but I just don't think Mitt is going to win. I will go vote and do my part but I just have a bad feeling about it.
That being said, should the GOP look at a reboot? Most informed people who get their news from anywhere but the daily show equate the GOP with fiscal sanity ideologically but lately we are consistently being equated with fringle politics. Should we moderate on the social issues to get what we want (and what is best for America) on the economic policies? By that I mean move moderate on gay marriage, abortion, and interventionist foreign policy while holding a hard line on decreasing the regulatory burden, making the corporate and marginal income tax rates lower and flatter, and rolling back environmental regulations that put people out of work.
I was politically apathetic for a long time but I've always had a very significant interest in economics. It wasn't until I began to listen to how utterly incorrect the democrats economic proposals were that I decided to follow politics more closely. I am always floored at how little Obama seems to understand about finance and macroeconomics in general. I feel like we could get more people to follow the GOP if we just moderated on the moot issues like gay marriage. These social/domestic policies aren't a net benefit for us...they just alienate would-be voters.
So...do we reboot or hold onto the religious right stuff?
I say moderate on gay marriage but not abortion. Young people aren't any more pro-choice than their parents in fact many are more pro-life. Most of them support gay marriage though 100% and its a make or break issue for them. The gay-bashing from Rick Santorum during the primary season ultimately turned off young voters this cycle and they are voting for Obama in the same numbers if not moreso than in 2008. Romney, the first Republican candidate in a generation to not place social issues in the center of his campaign, could very well be losing his shot at the White House because of the rhetoric of his opponent in the primaries. It's very sad but such is the way of politics.
The religious right is an important facet of the Republican party and makes up 30% of the electorate. There really isn't any way of completely getting rid of it, but if future candidates will follow Romney's lead and put it on the backburner, that will help. It's going to take somebody more charismatic though to somewhat penetrate the youth vote. 70+% of those under 30 will be voting for Obama. Republicans may never be able to win the millennial generation over, but they surely can to better than they have in the past two cycles. How can this be done though and still maintaining support from the religious right? The millennial generation and the religious right is a bit of an oxymoron, they hate each other, but on economic issues many young people actually agree with the GOP moreso than the Democrats.
I don't want to say it but I just don't think Mitt is going to win. I will go vote and do my part but I just have a bad feeling about it.
That being said, should the GOP look at a reboot? Most informed people who get their news from anywhere but the daily show equate the GOP with fiscal sanity ideologically but lately we are consistently being equated with fringle politics. Should we moderate on the social issues to get what we want (and what is best for America) on the economic policies? By that I mean move moderate on gay marriage, abortion, and interventionist foreign policy while holding a hard line on decreasing the regulatory burden, making the corporate and marginal income tax rates lower and flatter, and rolling back environmental regulations that put people out of work.
I was politically apathetic for a long time but I've always had a very significant interest in economics. It wasn't until I began to listen to how utterly incorrect the democrats economic proposals were that I decided to follow politics more closely. I am always floored at how little Obama seems to understand about finance and macroeconomics in general. I feel like we could get more people to follow the GOP if we just moderated on the moot issues like gay marriage. These social/domestic policies aren't a net benefit for us...they just alienate would-be voters.
So...do we reboot or hold onto the religious right stuff?
Oh, he understands it, alright, and it's going exactly the way he planned. A guy in 2016 referred to it as debt as a weapon of mass destruction, and destruction of America is exactly what 0bama wants.
The ones that mystify me are people like Biden. Granted, he's dumber than a carton of rotten eggs, but he should start seeing the light by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Fannie and Freddie had their share of problems, but they had very little to do with the type of loans that drove the system off the cliff. This was due to lack of regulation on the non-government back or insured loans, and pure greed. Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the extremely obscure and absurd loan products that flooded the market in 2003.
Oh, he understands it, alright, and it's going exactly the way he planned. A guy in 2016 referred to it as debt as a weapon of mass destruction, and destruction of America is exactly what 0bama wants.
The ones that mystify me are people like Biden. Granted, he's dumber than a carton of rotten eggs, but he should start seeing the light by now.
Wow. Just wow! Unbelievable.
Look at all the obscure loan products that came on the market, and became very popular starting in 2003. The stated loans, the no income loans, the option arms, they wren't a creation of Fannie or Freddie.
I don't want to say it but I just don't think Mitt is going to win. I will go vote and do my part but I just have a bad feeling about it.
That being said, should the GOP look at a reboot? Most informed people who get their news from anywhere but the daily show equate the GOP with fiscal sanity ideologically but lately we are consistently being equated with fringle politics. Should we moderate on the social issues to get what we want (and what is best for America) on the economic policies? By that I mean move moderate on gay marriage, abortion, and interventionist foreign policy while holding a hard line on decreasing the regulatory burden, making the corporate and marginal income tax rates lower and flatter, and rolling back environmental regulations that put people out of work.
I was politically apathetic for a long time but I've always had a very significant interest in economics. It wasn't until I began to listen to how utterly incorrect the democrats economic proposals were that I decided to follow politics more closely. I am always floored at how little Obama seems to understand about finance and macroeconomics in general. I feel like we could get more people to follow the GOP if we just moderated on the moot issues like gay marriage. These social/domestic policies aren't a net benefit for us...they just alienate would-be voters.
So...do we reboot or hold onto the religious right stuff?
I do.
Caught up in the hype the Obama campaign is using for propaganda?
Don't be, that's all it is.
I don't want to say it but I just don't think Mitt is going to win. I will go vote and do my part but I just have a bad feeling about it.
That being said, should the GOP look at a reboot? Most informed people who get their news from anywhere but the daily show equate the GOP with fiscal sanity ideologically but lately we are consistently being equated with fringle politics. Should we moderate on the social issues to get what we want (and what is best for America) on the economic policies? By that I mean move moderate on gay marriage, abortion, and interventionist foreign policy while holding a hard line on decreasing the regulatory burden, making the corporate and marginal income tax rates lower and flatter, and rolling back environmental regulations that put people out of work.
I was politically apathetic for a long time but I've always had a very significant interest in economics. It wasn't until I began to listen to how utterly incorrect the democrats economic proposals were that I decided to follow politics more closely. I am always floored at how little Obama seems to understand about finance and macroeconomics in general. I feel like we could get more people to follow the GOP if we just moderated on the moot issues like gay marriage. These social/domestic policies aren't a net benefit for us...they just alienate would-be voters.
So...do we reboot or hold onto the religious right stuff?
First off, I lived through the Bush administration. If that was fiscal sanity we are all very screwed. Secondly the GOP needs evangelicals, who are by and large a group who very much do not see gay marriage, abortion and social issues as 'moot'. Without the social issues the Democrats have a good prospect of reviving the FDR coalition which, in this day and age, would be the most dominant political coalition America will have seen all the way back to the time of the era of good feelings.
Basically white evangelicals are 25-30% of the American electorate and they are overwhelmingly Republican. Without them it would be questionable how viable the GOP would be.
Bush isn't in office now, so you can put that one to bed.
0bama has done far, far, far more fiscal damage than Bush thought about, even in his wildest dreams.
I know Bush isn't in office now. The point is I don't think either major party is particularly sane fiscally speaking. W Bush, Reagan, both were big spenders. The only fiscally sane presidents we had were H.W. Bush, who would likely be considered a liberal by current GOP standards, and Bill Clinton.
Good question here. You think Santorum and his supporters are going to go "We Told You So!" and push and even more conservative candidate next time?
Who do you think can offset this push that you know will come? Christie? Rubio? Jeb Bush?
I grew up in a farming family -- typical rural /small business Republicans. In college, I became acquainted with Ayn Rand's writings and was involved in the split among college conservatives between Objectivism and the traditional religious/nationalistic conservatism.
Since then, I've seen more and more better-educated conservatives uplift themselves toward the Libertarian Party (of which I've been a member since the late 80's) because they are alienated from the dogmatic stance of the Religious Right. Most are neutral on sexual issues, since the majority of LBGT's seem ignorant of the workings of free markets anyway.
The strident (pseudo-) Liberals, for the most part, just don't seem to have either the desire, nor the intellect, to separate the two (economic vs. social) axes of conservatism; they just damn us all as "Neocons" -- a word they can't define, but which apparently, they view as a cause of a lot of damage to their fantasies -- and go their merry way.
While I have no quarrel with many friends who remain in the Republican mainstream, and view Romney as essentially harmless, I feel that it's better that Obama get as much of the blame as possible for an economy that isn't likely to improve for a long time due to both global and domestic demographic pressure.
Every vote for Gary Johnson this November sends a signal to the Republican leadership that a very effective coalition can be formed -- if the more simplistic of the Christian Right can recognize the numbers inherent in the realpolitik, and mitigate their stridency -- it is not the Libertarians who are out to rule, or ruin.
As for the non-religious component of the Tea Party, they (and Ron Paul) simply have the sense to see the contradiction in advocating fre markets, but practicing socialism. Admittedly, the nation is too insecure to abandon the social safety net, but moving as much of it as possible back to local control would both allay the Centrists' worries and demonstrate that an obsession with power is the central tenet of the Cult of the Braying Jackass.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-24-2012 at 11:16 PM..
Every vote for Gary Johnson this November sends a signal to the Republican leadership that a very effective coalition can be formed -- if the more simplistic of the Christian Right can recognize the numbers inherent in the realpolitik, and mitigate their stridency -- it is not the Libertarians who are out to rule, or ruin.
That's wishful thinking on your part. If anything was going to knock sense into the R party, it would have been the extreme support of Ron Paul.
I come up as libertarian on every silly little internet quiz I take, and in most cases, align more closely with Ron Paul than any others. But good God, the guy is bat **** crazy and I would never vote for him.
There are only 2 legitimate parties at this point in time.
I don't have much hope. The GOP is corrupt and won't get fixed for several more presidential terms if it even gets fixed at all. Those in power in the GOP have tried to minimize the influence of the grassroots. Even they do not particularly support the tea party and see it as dangerous.
Unfortunately, the more popular belief is that the GOP can be changed and that it has to start from the bottom up. Maybe I'm a pessimist but with all the rule changes at the last RNC it is obvious that this power structure won't be changed for some time. The best option would be for a third party to take the place of the dying GOP, but not too many people see that yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
