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.
Question to you GOP'ers (and anyone else) - Help me understand why the GOP is so ignorant and seems to wish to become a permanent minority party. The decisions by the GOP are quite strange to me, their recent actions don't reflect of a party that has any desire to be a real national party and they consistently vote against the interests of their constituents.
1. Pushing Amnesty - I never understood why there was such an interest by the GOP to bring in millions of people who will likely never vote for the GOP. National polls have shown this, even when the GOP panders exclusively to them. Yet, McCain, and other GOP leaders have a fetish for cheap labor, even if it means destroying the party's ability to ever win a national election again. I understand why the Democrats want it, it will swell their constituency, but the GOP is fooling themselves if they think they'll get any real electoral benefit from mass amnesty. To me, it is strange almost laughable.
have you actually read what was proposed? probably not. there are requirements that the border be secured FIRST, before any immigration reform is even talked about. and there is no amnesty either, in fact those that want to be come legal aliens must pay back taxes, pay a fine, and then get in the back of the line while those that want to be here legally get first crack.
Quote:
2. Sequestration- The GOP votes for Sequestration, and puts up cuts that seriously hurt their interests (namely defense), while the impact to Democrat interests under Sequestration are much more limited. When presented the opportunity to lift sequestration caps during the shutdown, they stubbornly hod to them and willingly continued to cut their nose to spite their face. Again, very strange.
sequestration was obamas baby not the republicans, and obama said many times that he would VETO ANY attempt to change sequestration, and harry reid backed obamas play on that.
Quote:
3. Affordable Healthcare and the government shutdown - Rather than making their protest known and capitalizing on the frustrations and negative experiences with the roll out of the ACA, they chose to shutdown the government to make a point. Shifting all the attention away from the problems for nearly a month, they did more to further marginalize themselves in the eyes of the American Electorate.
while the republicans did push for defunding obama care, and that effort was rejected by the senate, the first bill that was put up for consideration funded the ENTIRE government. the next bill just pushed for delaying the individual mandate, but did everything else, and yet harry reid REFUSED to consider the bill, so tell me again who shut down the government? and remember that its not congress who decides where the money goes when the government is shut down, its the PRESIDENT, and obama chose to make the shut down hurt as much as possible, the same way he did the sequestration by the way as again obama was the one that decided where the money went.
Quote:
Worse, instead of offering a viable solution to the ACA or modifying it, they simply wanted to dismantle it. I can't see how this would ever play to the national electorate. Essentially, no matter what your political ideology, the idea of keeping the current broken system, fighting getting more people health insurance coverage and shutting down the government to do so seems like a crazy political strategy.
I can't see how the GOP will be a relevant national party in 10 years, maybe much sooner.
one more time, search engines are your friend, try googling republican health care plans and actually READ the links that come up, and you will find that the republicans offered up many different plans to replace obamacare. your post is full of fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
In all seriousness, I think someone pays a non-trivial number of these posters to post here.
really? where do i got to sign up and get paid for posting?
Quote:
As to your OP, I don't think the Tea Party cares about the republican party, I just think they hate -- literally hate -- the democratic party.
rubbish. the tea party wants the government to get back to following the constitution, and that means BOTH sides of the isle.
really? where do i got to sign up and get paid for posting?
i doubt they pay much, but try on the of PACs
for example, if you're young, generationopportunity.org is a koch-funded astroturfing campaign, who will probably pay you as long as you repeat what they tell you.
You answered none of the three questions, yet the three examples I cited are true, the GOP leadership wants Amnesty, wanted Sequestration caps to remain, and tried to stop the ACA (and lost).
Why?
Ask yourself who are their real constituents, the regular Joe or something or someone else?
You answered none of the three questions, yet the three examples I cited are true, the GOP leadership wants Amnesty, wanted Sequestration caps to remain, and tried to stop the ACA (and lost).
Why?
Perhaps you've mistaken us for Democrats. We are not "party fanboys". The GOP hasn't had a spine since Newt Gingrich was speaker. They should be grateful I'm not the one at the top. Because I DO have a spine, and I would insert one into every one of them if necessary. We would not just fight, we would WIN. By whatever means there is. There was a lot of blood spilled to secure our freedoms and to win our individual rights. What's a little whiny criticism from the children on the left? Nothing.
Question to you GOP'ers (and anyone else) - Help me understand why the GOP is so ignorant and seems to wish to become a permanent minority party. The decisions by the GOP are quite strange to me, their recent actions don't reflect of a party that has any desire to be a real national party and they consistently vote against the interests of their constituents.
1. Pushing Amnesty - I never understood why there was such an interest by the GOP to bring in millions of people who will likely never vote for the GOP. National polls have shown this, even when the GOP panders exclusively to them. Yet, McCain, and other GOP leaders have a fetish for cheap labor, even if it means destroying the party's ability to ever win a national election again. I understand why the Democrats want it, it will swell their constituency, but the GOP is fooling themselves if they think they'll get any real electoral benefit from mass amnesty. To me, it is strange almost laughable.
2. Sequestration- The GOP votes for Sequestration, and puts up cuts that seriously hurt their interests (namely defense), while the impact to Democrat interests under Sequestration are much more limited. When presented the opportunity to lift sequestration caps during the shutdown, they stubbornly hod to them and willingly continued to cut their nose to spite their face. Again, very strange.
3. Affordable Healthcare and the government shutdown - Rather than making their protest known and capitalizing on the frustrations and negative experiences with the roll out of the ACA, they chose to shutdown the government to make a point. Shifting all the attention away from the problems for nearly a month, they did more to further marginalize themselves in the eyes of the American Electorate.
Worse, instead of offering a viable solution to the ACA or modifying it, they simply wanted to dismantle it. I can't see how this would ever play to the national electorate. Essentially, no matter what your political ideology, the idea of keeping the current broken system, fighting getting more people health insurance coverage and shutting down the government to do so seems like a crazy political strategy.
I can't see how the GOP will be a relevant national party in 10 years, maybe much sooner.
Well, I'm a Republican and I'm happy to address your points.
1. With regards to pushing amnesty and how much political capital it brings. Not all, but a good portion of Hispanics are overwhelmingly conservative...at least socially. They tend to vote for Democrats because of their position on immigration, but as far as personal ideology...a lot of them are fairly conservative. They are overwhelmingly Catholic which typically translates to pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Further, the hispanics in South Florida (Cuban Americans) are normally conservative voters and they represent a large minority in a crucial swing state. Amnesty turns otherwise single issue voters that side with Democrats into "in-play" voters for the Republicans. George Bush ran a neutral immigration platform and he did VERY well with Hispanic voters. So did Jeb. I think supporting amnesty is a smart move for the GOP.
2. I don't like sequestration, but I do support cuts. The conservative base may not like the blind cuts sequestration causes...but nearly the entire conservative base supports cuts in general. The GOP proposed a number of options to have more precise cuts, but Democrats opposed them in lieu of revenue increases. So, it is a political lose/lose IMO...it just illustrates Washington's inability to work on a broader scale. But again...sequestration may not be popular on it's own merits but the base loves spending cuts regardless.....as Boehner said, "The only thing worse than sequestration is no sequestration."
3. The shutdown was a waste of time and political harmful because the majority of the American public lack the ability to dig into the daily goings on of congress...the GOP proposed a number partial appropriation bills to fund government that received no media airtime. The GOP literally proposed daily plans to fund every portion of government with exception to the healthcare law but Harry Reid had no interest in hearing these plans. Reid wouldn't accept anything that funded government except a full bill...congress normally works on appropriations bills so Reid's insistence wasn't entirely "in-keeping" with business as usual. Now, naturally the majority of American's just blame the GOP because that is what NBC tells them to do. I personally disagreed with the shutdown because it isn't smart to attempt to govern from minority status...we need to win seats and then govern how we see fit. So, I disagree with you on the shutdown being harmful and a waste of effort.
The GOP has offered solutions to healthcare. Multiple solutions. Multiple free market solutions. Paul Ryan outlined these very clearly in 2012. The Heritage Foundation recently published a revised healthcare solution simply called, "The Plan." The issue is that these receive no media airtime so the majority of Americans just say the line you just spat out..."The GOP offered no plan." But that is, as the left usually is, intellectually dishonest. The GOP "Plan" isn't a "plan" because the free market shouldn't be dictated by central government "plans." The GOP "Plan" is opening up the insurance market to interstate commerce, removing tax advantaged status to employer provided healthcare in lieu of private market healthcare, mandating providers post prices, empowering non-physician medical practictioners to compete the doctors (PA's, NP's, etc), advanceable tax credits for those Americans who can't afford coverage up to the catastrophe level, more high ded plans which encourage frugality, etc. etc. etc.
Further...the ENTIRE healthcare arena is elastic with exception to major traumatic surgery and accidents. These would obviously be covered by catastrophe insurance because they don't lend themsevles to negotiation...the're inelastic. But even Cancer treatment lends itself to negotiation because multiple venue's provide treatment.
Those are the GOP remedies to healthcare COSTS.
With regards to the relevance of the party...people said the Democrats were on the verge of irrelevance in the 80's with Reagan's popularity....politics are cyclical. Don't worry...the GOP aint' going anywhere.
for example, if you're young, generationopportunity.org is a koch-funded astroturfing campaign, who will probably pay you as long as you repeat what they tell you.
^^^^^ Hypocrite. And a liar.
My city's craigslist has, on EVERY day of the week, multiple advertisements recruiting PAID activists for an assortment of Democrat special interest groups. NOT ONE for TEA Party or conservative causes. Ever.
Well, I'm a Republican and I'm happy to address your points.
1. With regards to pushing amnesty and how much political capital it brings. Not all, but a good portion of Hispanics are overwhelmingly conservative...at least socially. They tend to vote for Democrats because of their position on immigration, but as far as personal ideology...a lot of them are fairly conservative. They are overwhelmingly Catholic which typically translates to pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Further, the hispanics in South Florida (Cuban Americans) are normally conservative voters and they represent a large minority in a crucial swing state. Amnesty turns otherwise single issue voters that side with Democrats into "in-play" voters for the Republicans. George Bush ran a neutral immigration platform and he did VERY well with Hispanic voters. So did Jeb. I think supporting amnesty is a smart move for the GOP.
2. I don't like sequestration, but I do support cuts. The conservative base may not like the blind cuts sequestration causes...but nearly the entire conservative base supports cuts in general. The GOP proposed a number of options to have more precise cuts, but Democrats opposed them in lieu of revenue increases. So, it is a political lose/lose IMO...it just illustrates Washington's inability to work on a broader scale. But again...sequestration may not be popular on it's own merits but the base loves spending cuts regardless.....as Boehner said, "The only thing worse than sequestration is no sequestration."
3. The shutdown was a waste of time and political harmful because the majority of the American public lack the ability to dig into the daily goings on of congress...the GOP proposed a number partial appropriation bills to fund government that received no media airtime. The GOP literally proposed daily plans to fund every portion of government with exception to the healthcare law but Harry Reid had no interest in hearing these plans. Reid wouldn't accept anything that funded government except a full bill...congress normally works on appropriations bills so Reid's insistence wasn't entirely "in-keeping" with business as usual. Now, naturally the majority of American's just blame the GOP because that is what NBC tells them to do. I personally disagreed with the shutdown because it isn't smart to attempt to govern from minority status...we need to win seats and then govern how we see fit. So, I disagree with you on the shutdown being harmful and a waste of effort.
The GOP has offered solutions to healthcare. Multiple solutions. Multiple free market solutions. Paul Ryan outlined these very clearly in 2012. The Heritage Foundation recently published a revised healthcare solution simply called, "The Plan." The issue is that these receive no media airtime so the majority of Americans just say the line you just spat out..."The GOP offered no plan." But that is, as the left usually is, intellectually dishonest. The GOP "Plan" isn't a "plan" because the free market shouldn't be dictated by central government "plans." The GOP "Plan" is opening up the insurance market to interstate commerce, removing tax advantaged status to employer provided healthcare in lieu of private market healthcare, mandating providers post prices, empowering non-physician medical practictioners to compete the doctors (PA's, NP's, etc), advanceable tax credits for those Americans who can't afford coverage up to the catastrophe level, more high ded plans which encourage frugality, etc. etc. etc.
Further...the ENTIRE healthcare arena is elastic with exception to major traumatic surgery and accidents. These would obviously be covered by catastrophe insurance because they don't lend themsevles to negotiation...the're inelastic. But even Cancer treatment lends itself to negotiation because multiple venue's provide treatment.
Those are the GOP remedies to healthcare COSTS.
With regards to the relevance of the party...people said the Democrats were on the verge of irrelevance in the 80's with Reagan's popularity....politics are cyclical. Don't worry...the GOP aint' going anywhere.
Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response. My understanding is that "doing well" for the GOP with Hispanic voters is getting about 20% of the vote. Hardly numbers that would favor them in a national election, given the increase in numbers.
Two, most Latinos tend to favor big government solutions, this is what they are used to and national polling has confirmed this again and again. The idea of small limited government is largely an American ideal, most immigrant groups do not share this world view. Again, national polling has shown this again and again. So other than cheap labor, I still fail to see how the GOP will really benefit as a national party from huge amounts of immigration. Past large immigration waves were followed by long periods of virtually no immigration to allow those who came here to adapt and socialize into the American way of life, the most recent being the 1920-50's where there was very little immigration following the previous 30 year period.
Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response. My understanding is that "doing well" for the GOP with Hispanic voters is getting about 20% of the vote. Hardly numbers that would favor them in a national election, given the increase in numbers.
Two, most Latinos tend to favor big government solutions, this is what they are used to and national polling has confirmed this again and again. The idea of small limited government is largely an American ideal, most immigrant groups do not share this world view. Again, national polling has shown this again and again. So other than cheap labor, I still fail to see how the GOP will really benefit as a national party from huge amounts of immigration. Past large immigration waves were followed by long periods of virtually no immigration to allow those who came here to adapt and socialize into the American way of life, the most recent being the 1920-50's where there was very little immigration following the previous 30 year period.
My only contention is that it depends on which group of Hispanics. My family on my mother's side are Cuban American's. Cuban American's detest big government solutions because they have risked life and limb to leave it. These people are fairly conservative in fiscal terms as well. Their only contention is the immigration issue, which the GOP is beginning to moderate on to some degree.
With regards to Hispanics on the whole, the idea of accepting big government solutions is a by product of the fact that most are of a lower socioeconomic class. Once they move up the social ladder a bit, they begin to moderate. Studies have shown that Hispanics and Asian voting patterns begin to move right once they pass 200% of the poverty level which is indicative of the commonly held axiom that once people start making money they start voting for the GOP regardless of race. Obviously this isn't the case for eveyone and the study itself is a bit of a generalization, but voting patterns certainly shift right once income increases.
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.
