Current or modern politics in the United States

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

The real question is who would be desirous of saving the Republican party?

OK, let's say the Republican party reforms itself to improve public relations and its public image. The Republican party is no longer the party of gun people, Christians, and the uneducated (you know who you are... you are the bachelor degrees who think wikipedia is good source material), then what?

A healthy democracy needs both viable choices at the ballot box and a rational political discourse. If the Republicans had been able to give the American people a decent offer, the Obama administration would have been in serious trouble and that would not have been a bad thing. The risk now is that if the Democrats start to believe that the Republicans are unelectable, the Democrats will start to abuse their power. The Republicans have a responsibility to the broader electorate to put forward an electable candidate in 2016.

But I would point out that, for all his faults, candidate Romney played a rotten hand skilfully and did give the Obama camp a serious fright. Mr Romney was fatally undermined by his party; it was his party which was rejected by the electorate. Todd Akin delivered a timely reminder of how offensively misogynist and extreme mainstream Republican positions on abortion truly are. For such people to exercise legislative power over women was a very disturbing prospect to a lot of male Republican supporters.

In particular it drew attention to Paul Ryan and his voting record in support of really hardline anti-abortion bills in Congress, designed to pander to the most mean-spirited religious bigots in the Republican hinterland. I was struck by the dignity and self-discipline of many young Republican supporters when absorbing the scale of their defeat. I was also struck by the way in which so many of them identified social conservatism, religious bias and abortion as issues which had cost them a lot of support. Mr Ryan was not an asset to Mr Romney in the search for independent and centre ground support. Like Sarah Palin before him, he was there as a sop to the reactionary right wing; but like Ms Palin he sent a bad message to the rest of the voters about what a Romney presidency might be like.

This is the problem the Republicans have got. They select candidates who preach to their choir rather than candidates who might win support outside the door of their increasingly narrow church. Those young college and graduate aged Republicans who were gently discussing what went wrong in 2012 may go on to ask themselves if this party represents them anymore anyway. They might reconsider their allegiance.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

A healthy democracy needs both viable choices at the ballot box and a rational political discourse. If the Republicans had been able to give the American people a decent offer, the Obama administration would have been in serious trouble and that would not have been a bad thing. The risk now is that if the Democrats start to believe that the Republicans are unelectable, the Democrats will start to abuse their power. The Republicans have a responsibility to the broader electorate to put forward an electable candidate in 2016.

But I would point out that, for all his faults, candidate Romney played a rotten hand skilfully and did give the Obama camp a serious fright. Mr Romney was fatally undermined by his party; it was his party which was rejected by the electorate. Todd Akin delivered a timely reminder of how offensively misogynist and extreme mainstream Republican positions on abortion truly are. For such people to exercise legislative power over women was a very disturbing prospect to a lot of male Republican supporters.

In particular it drew attention to Paul Ryan and his voting record in support of really hardline anti-abortion bills in Congress, designed to pander to the most mean-spirited religious bigots in the Republican hinterland. I was struck by the dignity and self-discipline of many young Republican supporters when absorbing the scale of their defeat. I was also struck by the way in which so many of them identified social conservatism, religious bias and abortion as issues which had cost them a lot of support. Mr Ryan was not an asset to Mr Romney in the search for independent and centre ground support. Like Sarah Palin before him, he was there as a sop to the reactionary right wing; but like Ms Palin he sent a bad message to the rest of the voters about what a Romney presidency might be like.

This is the problem the Republicans have got. They select candidates who preach to their choir rather than candidates who might win support outside the door of their increasingly narrow church. Those young college and graduate aged Republicans who were gently discussing what went wrong in 2012 may go on to ask themselves if this party represents them anymore anyway. They might reconsider their allegiance.

A lot of the people sounding the death knell of the Republican party are forgetting that most Americans are probably slightly conservative by nature. Another way to read the last election was a spoon fed, grossly out of touch rich boy infamous for destroying working class jobs, out-sourcing Jobs to other countries, and basically being in the pocket of big business and special interest lobbies came dangerously close to winning the Presidential election of 2012. People forget that the same things were being said about liberals and democrats not too long ago. There was once a time when having a political opponent call you a liberal and having it stick was tantamount to being labeled a child molester in most voters eyes. What's fun now is that the shoe is somewhat on the other foot. Calling someone a conservative and having it stick is to paint a portrait of someone who tends to watch a lot of reality TV, needs help keeping their jaws from drooping, and tends to panic and whine about the end of the world at the drop of a hat. It flip flops about every other generation or so.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by dethtongue

A lot of the people sounding the death knell of the Republican party are forgetting that most Americans are probably slightly conservative by nature.

This is part of why the Republican failure is so strange. In the UK, Mr Obama himself would, at the most left, be in the Liberal Democrats, the British centre party; quite likely he would be a mainstream Conservative in the UK. Mr Ryan would probably be under surveillance by MI6 as a potential fascist subversive, and at the most left he would be in UKIP; and Mr Cheney would most likely be attending a Church-organised community daycare centre and drawing pictures and listening to music through headphones in line with his individually tailored psychiatric therapy program.

The existing Republican party has detached itself from its natural constituency and is in hock to the religious right, a group too small to get a Republican president elected and too divisive to reach out effectively to the conservative mainstream.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

This is part of why the Republican failure is so strange. In the UK, Mr Obama himself would, at the most left, be in the Liberal Democrats, the British centre party; quite likely he would be a maionstream Conservative in the UK. Mr Ryan woul probably be under surveillance by MI6 as a potential fascist subversive, and at the most left he would be in UKIP; and Mr Cheney would most likely be attending a Church-organised community daycare centre and drawing pictures and listening to music through headphones in line with his individually tailored psychiatric therapy program.

[...].

I like this description; as it is most congruent with mine.

For the conservative parties here ... many of the actual (Republican) candidates would have been sorted out as "unelectable" right from the start. No doubt, we are having such figures here too, if I think of "Le Pen" of France. In most other countries like mine they are falling at the "below 5 % clause" (= votes are lost).

Obama would be a center candidate (liberal) with a mainly conservative touch. But carefully, he is no real liberal, he is a neo (-new) liberal like he is in his financial policy.

[Mad Koala Bear]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The existing Republican party has detached itself from its natural constituency and is in hock to the religious right, a group too small to get a Republican president elected and too divisive to reach out effectively to the conservative mainstream.

But sadly at State level they are still capable of introducing the most appalling retrogressive, fact and evidence deficient, right-wing, millionaire pleasing, fox 'news' pleasing, god-botherer legislation. Recently states have introduced bills that would make miscarriages illegal, give 'personhood' status to hour old zygotes, make the use of some contraceptives illegal, close abortion access, abolish collective bargaining, so called 'anti-voter fraud' measures, boundary gerrymandering, close down Medi-care and other provisions, which many of their elderly supporters depend upon, and even an attempt to remove direct elections to Congress.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by damp-patch

But sadly at State level they are still capable of introducing the most appalling retrogressive, fact and evidence deficient, right-wing, millionaire pleasing, fox 'news' pleasing, god-botherer legislation. Recently states have introduced bills that would make miscarriages illegal, give 'personhood' status to hour old zygotes, make the use of some contraceptives illegal, close abortion access, abolish collective bargaining, so called 'anti-voter fraud' measures, boundary gerrymandering, close down Medi-care and other provisions, which many of their elderly supporters depend upon, and even an attempt to remove direct elections to Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_AgoX_jam8

[DTravel]

People keep talking about how much people get living on Welfare. Here's something I want to know, where the *bleep* is all this money? Seriously, I live in the US in one of the most liberal states and about two years ago I was the perfect candidate for Welfare, desperately applying for any and all financial help programs I could to keep eating and hopefully keep a roof over my head. The best I could I get was $300 a month that would stop after six months. So where the f*ck are all these flowing rivers of Welfare money?!?!?

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by DTravel

People keep talking about how much people get living on Welfare. Here's something I want to know, where the *bleep* is all this money? Seriously, I live in the US in one of the most liberal states and about two years ago I was the perfect candidate for Welfare, desperately applying for any and all financial help programs I could to keep eating and hopefully keep a roof over my head. The best I could I get was $300 a month that would stop after six months. So where the f*ck are all these flowing rivers of Welfare money?!?!?

These flowing rivers of Welfare money aren't present - I think nowhere, except in the fantasies of some cacker-barrel philosophers.

Look, every state is engaged to keep those numbers of jobless low. That's everywhere the same - here too. For example here some programs are started were the jobless are pressed in. Some companies are getting payed (from the administrative bodies) to pay the jobless - for a lesser income as before, for a lesser income as the normal/usual rate (by the trade unions) - for any kind of "useless" jobs (it's to extensive, going into details). Not to mention, that the amount of payment the companies are getting is not equal with the sum they pay out to the "now workers" (social costs included of course). "And there you have it..." - they aren't jobless any more; now they aren't in the statistic any more.
A indeed lucrative busyness for the companies. Not to mention, when that program is finished - maybe 3 months later, they get fired.
And the side effect for is - than the money they are getting now as a jobless - is reduced to their last income. Got it ?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by savage560

...I'd like to throw Paul Ryan & John Boener off a cliff physically, thats where 3/4 of them belong!

PS, Hey Mr. Scound you give me no credit anymore,hey I'm not a Republican I love you man,I love people!

Republicans are people too, you know.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

[....]
Man has been profiting off of other's suffering has been around as long as the hills. The civil war and slavery was about keeping cheap labour and maximizing profits.

I'm sure the Democrats profit from things, too. It's just part of a game that is played. However, the Republicans seem more willing to send their soldiers to far away lands to fight. War is huge business.

When things happen that don't make sense, follow the money trail. 999/1000, you'll find the answer there.

.

Very true !!!!

War is big business for only a few (which aren't involved in action) !!

Not for the national economy. Contrariwise , it ruins the national economy!
The tax payers money is running into the bags of the military industrial complex of a few companies and a few service conductors.

Soldiers are send into dead and can't participating at the national product any more.

Just an add.