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.
Mitt the moderate would have DEFENDED Perry when he was callously jeered for trying to explain the reasonable policies towards educating children of illegals he believed in. Mitt, fearing your radical right, moved to join the crowd.
Leaders lead, they don't follow/join.
A moderate would have admonished the "Let em die" cheer at the debate-Re: the uninsured question. When Mitt had his chance to speak, he said nothing about that impropriety.
Mitt made all his money because of tax policy which makes debt financing a tax deduction. So he acquired companies that had equity on credit and converted the tax deduction into a cash flow. Gee, couldn't we just get ride of corporate taxes to do the same thing instead of creating a huge bank liability to not pay taxes?
This is how utterly stupid the Republicans are these days.
Typical righty or lefty, neither of which as any idea of the legitimate role of government. A moderate is just like asking for luke warm water. I am rather extreme and very specific about the role of government and I am not lazy about it either.
Government should establish a strict authority to establish market systems and to regulate or run natural monopolies while using general prosperity as the tax base for as little dead weight as possible on industry with no taxes for labor, or capital of which land and water are most certainly NOT capital. Capital must be defined as a product of human labor like of some kind like a tool to attach proper tax policy to it. The Federal government should shrink to allow state governments to fulfill many of those tasks. That creates a government market system of competing states.
But like I say, the people that agree with me are mostly dead geniuses . If I want to find someone to agree with me I have to read J S Mill.
Bingo.
I'd say they should shrink and only worry about immigration, nuetral foreign realtions and some sort of military (which probably could be cut in half from what we have now).
If you never checked out Lew Rockwell's website you should. There's a lot of good stuff about economics on there. And the articles aren't all bogged down with nonsensical made up economc crap like "predetory lending" lols.
[quote=OhioRules;28502979]W was comfortable with Latinos and won twice. Yet, his base won't vote for him because he is comfortable with Latinos? lols.
If you look at all levels of government, local, state and federal you will discover that more latinos are elected as Republicans than as Democrats. So why do you think Republicans wouldn't vote for someone that is comfortable with Latinos. They vote for Latinos more than Democrats.
And Republicans seem to want Marco Rubio to run for Prez. Don't tell anyone, but he's Latino.
/quote]
Rubio is the new candy bar, a fad, just like Jindal, the hot item a few years ago, yesterdays' news now.
On the local level, the GOP focuses on fiscal campaigns, and win. On the national, they do the inverse.
Among the younger generation, the Republican stance on social issues is so toxic that a lot of people who more often than not vote Republican (mainly on economic issues) identify as /call themselves independents or libertarians instead, to make it clear they do not support the republican party on stuff like wanting to ban abortion, being against gay-marriage, not caring enough about the environment, etc.
Meanwhile, younger people who only support the Republicans moderately on economic issues tend to either vote for Democrats based on social ones or just not bother voting at all.
Granted I live in the Northeast, maybe things are different down South.
Mitt made all his money because of tax policy which makes debt financing a tax deduction. So he acquired companies that had equity on credit and converted the tax deduction into a cash flow. Gee, couldn't we just get ride of corporate taxes to do the same thing instead of creating a huge bank liability to not pay taxes?
This is how utterly stupid the Republicans are these days.
What? You respond to a post about the debates with stuff about Mitt's private equity bus decisions? Now I could understand your post as a new issue, but not as a reply to something 180 degrees away from your issue.
Moderate Republicans seem to be all but gone. What happened to the Eisenhower Republicans?
Any that were still left when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney served 8 years either left the party or were eaten alive during their two terms of scorched earth.
In 2012, they would not have voted for him. What was left of the fading national GOP had moved radically to the right of W.
Well he didn't run in 2012. So you just making stuff up. It's totally meaningless.
and if you look at the 2010 and 2012 elections at the local, state and national level you will find that more Latinos were elected running as Republicans than as Democrats. Which makes your theory even more ridiculous.
And it hard to move to the right of W. since he is basically a Democrat that calls himself a Republican.
Unless you think expanding the power of the Federal Government more than anyone in history (besides Obama) makes one a small governmen conservative? lols.
Democrats don't like Bush becasue he had an R behind his name.
Republicans don't like Obama because he has a D behind his name.
That's all there is too it. The parties agree on everything. The only difference is around the margains.
Moderate Republicans seem to be all but gone. What happened to the Eisenhower Republicans?
The establishment Republicans are "Eisenhower Republicans". Bush was an Eisenhower Republican. Boehner is an Eisenhower Republican. McCain is an Eisenhower Republican.
What you see now is Democrats moving to the left without admitting they have done so. This makes what used to be the left into the center, and what used to be the center into the right.
And I am not just making a biased assertion here - all you have to do to see this is true is look at the membership levels of the Progressive and Blue Dog caucuses and how they have changed over time.
Since it is more popular to be seen as a moderate, left wing liberals declare themselves as moderates. Moderate Republicans then become right wing Republicans, and right wing Republicans become extremists.
You see this type of stuff all the time - "where are the moderates in the Republican party", "the Republicans have been taken over by extremists", "the GOP needs to move to the center", etc - there are endless variations on this theme. What you need to do is ask two questions. First, "what policies would Republicans have to support in order to qualify as moderate to the person asking this question?". The second one, and this is the critical one, is "Are these policies that Republicans would ever have been likely to support?"
The easiest to use example to illustrate this is taxes. Republicans are such extremists these days that they won't get behind even modest tax increases. Well, no. Republicans have never supported tax increases. They are not suddenly right wing extremists. If you asked a Republican in 1920 he would say "low taxes are better for the country". If you asked a Republican in 1950 he would say "low taxes are better for the country". And if you ask a Republican today he will say "low taxes are better for the country".
Of course the other thing they will do is pick one specific group that is on the right and generalize it to be the entire right wing, most commonly religious fundamentalists. The people who support teaching creationism and prayer in schools and such tend to be Republicans. That does not mean all Republicans support that. This is just the equivalent of me saying well environmentalists are generally on the left so therefore the Democrat party has been taken over by eco-terrorists. This is of course ridiculous, but liberals do the same thing in reverse on a regular basis.
I don't believe in bending over backwards for the ultra rich because they "might" toss scraps of jobs to us if we just cut their taxes more and more (they'll just invest their savings in derivatives, assuming they paid taxes in the first place), cut taxes for the middle class and poor, I don't believe in the privatization of public infrastructure, I don't want FDR's or LBJ's programs to be rolled back, socially conservative, pro 2A, don't believe in global warming, anti-austerity, anti-amnesty. Overall, I'm somewhere between center and center-right.
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.
