GOP losing party identification in almost every single major demographic subgroup

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77


Limbaugh makes a good point from time to time, but he has every quality that I detest in many liberals, which is total lack of humility and an inflated sense of worth, ego, and intelligence.

Interesting. That's exactly how I'm starting to feel about you.

Stop... you're going to make me blush

. Tell me, which of your personalities would you prefer I address? I'd hate to get into it with you only to have your alter ego rush in to your defense :laugh: .

That was my girlfriend, you fool.
Why don't you take it up with the Forum Moderators?

LOL

I believe that case was closed, but it's still fun to highlight your total lack of credibility. Now piss off... like most people, I generally avoid little weasels who use multiple accounts to back themselves up 😉 . Ooh... did I just end that with a preposition? You must be fuming! :laugh:

If you recall, the case was closed because the mods ruled in favor of us.

If you cannot live with their decision, fine, we've gotten used to having our own personal troll; we call it The Bourne Idiocracy.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Any CONSERVATIVE who doesn't take Limbaugh with a grain of salt is a REPUBLICAN I can live without.

Limbaugh makes a good point from time to time, but he has every quality that I detest in many liberals, which is total lack of humility and an inflated sense of worth, ego, and intelligence.

He outright lies on the show, I've heard it myself.

Oh no doubt. He's an idiot and a lying one at that. When I first became interested in politics years ago, he was the only reason I wouldn't call myself a Republican. I quickly found other reasons, but he remained chief among them.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: misle
The reason people are fleeing the GOP is because the GOP is no longer conservative.

Keep telling yourself that.

I think people are confusing the GOP's expansion of govt and social services with not being conservative enough. The GOP has imo become more conservative in the last 8 years on social issues while becoming more liberal on fiscal issues. IMO that is a bad combination. And people agree.

I agree, but the people thinking the Dems are moving to the far left are misguided. The Dems are not tacking Left so much as they are articulating a Middle. The GOP's leaving that space so completely open has given them the chance to claim it as theirs alone. And amazingly they are not squandering the opportunity. You need the "middle/center" to win elections.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77


Limbaugh makes a good point from time to time, but he has every quality that I detest in many liberals, which is total lack of humility and an inflated sense of worth, ego, and intelligence.

Interesting. That's exactly how I'm starting to feel about you.

Stop... you're going to make me blush

. Tell me, which of your personalities would you prefer I address? I'd hate to get into it with you only to have your alter ego rush in to your defense :laugh: .

That was my girlfriend, you fool.
Why don't you take it up with the Forum Moderators?

LOL

I believe that case was closed, but it's still fun to highlight your total lack of credibility. Now piss off... like most people, I generally avoid little weasels who use multiple accounts to back themselves up 😉 . Ooh... did I just end that with a preposition? You must be fuming! :laugh:

If you recall, the case was closed because the mods ruled in favor of us.

If you cannot live with their decision, fine, we've gotten used to having our own personal troll; we call it The Bourne Idiocracy.

ZING!

Well, then you're slightly less pathetic than I thought you were. Instead of logging back in to defend yourself, your girlfriend does. You sure showed me :laugh: . You didn't think this through very well... If I were you, I'd keep that information a little more guarded 😉 .

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77


Limbaugh makes a good point from time to time, but he has every quality that I detest in many liberals, which is total lack of humility and an inflated sense of worth, ego, and intelligence.

Interesting. That's exactly how I'm starting to feel about you.

Stop... you're going to make me blush

. Tell me, which of your personalities would you prefer I address? I'd hate to get into it with you only to have your alter ego rush in to your defense :laugh: .

That was my girlfriend, you fool.
Why don't you take it up with the Forum Moderators?

LOL

I believe that case was closed, but it's still fun to highlight your total lack of credibility. Now piss off... like most people, I generally avoid little weasels who use multiple accounts to back themselves up 😉 . Ooh... did I just end that with a preposition? You must be fuming! :laugh:

If you recall, the case was closed because the mods ruled in favor of us.

If you cannot live with their decision, fine, we've gotten used to having our own personal troll; we call it The Bourne Idiocracy.

ZING!

Well, then you're slightly less pathetic than I thought you were. Instead of logging back in to defend yourself, your girlfriend does. You sure showed me :laugh: . You didn't think this through very well... If I were you, I'd keep that information a little more guarded 😉 .

No, the situation was a matter of failing to change logins in the heat of discussion; but feel free to keep playing your little secret agent/ cyber assassin fantasy, it's all good.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
In order to embrace new ideas, you have to be willing to let go of some of the old ideas. If recent history is any guide, any Republican who does that immediately has his buttons and chevrons ripped off, right before the door hits him in ass. The Republican party is vying for the smallest tent in the circus right now.

They haven't stuck to their talking points for a long time in large part for the simple reason that it's impossible due to them being mutually contradictory. Small government and enforcing "family values", for example, contradict each other...

Great post, it reinforces thoughts that I've been trying to post here for years. Keep up the good work.

The fascinating thing to me (and also their ultimate demise) is to contrast the way the Republican party runs itself to the way they want to run the US. The two could not be any different. The Republican party is run like a dictatorship; although right now it is run like a deposed dictatorship waiting for another dictator. But their ideals are for a small government with personal freedom. Those two things are incompatable but inevitiable.

The reason why they resorted to this tactic is highlighted in your posts above. The republican party overreached in an attempt to encompass everyone. Heck, it temporarilly worked with a peak in Reagan's landslide victory. But, when you include everyone, you include mutual contradictions and a loosely bound coalition. They had to rule with an iron fist to keep the coalition together. Make any movement away from the party line and you are finished. New GOP candidates were forced into signing documents toting the party agenda line-for-line if they EVER hoped to get any GOP support.

I've asked this before multiple times, and I've never gotten a response. Why should an anti-aborition person necesarilly want lower taxes? Why should someone who wants lower taxes be pro-gun? Why should someone who is pro-gun be anti-gay rights? Why should an anti-gay rights person want a stronger military? Why should someone who wants a smaller government want to protect children from profanity on TV? Are there ANY real ties in the Republican party?

They overreached and couldn't hold thier promisses to everyone. Heck, they haven't held their promisses for almost anyone. Presidents from Nixon onwards (yes, even Reagan) weren't fiscally conservative, even though they all promissed to be so. The biggest expansion of gay rights occured while Republicans held the congress, presidency, and supreme court. Nothing has been done to stop abortion. The biggest gun sale boom came under Obama (and probably the biggest gun rights boom as well I predict). About the only promise they kept was to lower taxes, but they forgot the flip side of lowered spending to appease fiscal conservatives.

America is waking up. The GOP needs to create a new base and stick to it. Otherwise it'll be Democrat rule for quite some time.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: feralkid
No, the situation was a matter of failing to change logins in the heat of discussion; but feel free to keep playing your little secret agent/ cyber assassin fantasy, it's all good.

That's how you were caught. Still doesn't change the fact that you need your girlfriend to back you up on an Internet forum. I do see that it pretty much came to a halt after the PFI thread, which makes me wonder if this "inflatable doll" - err, "girlfriend" - alibi is merely a figment of your imagination.

Anywho (<- made-up word alert!), this has run its course. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[edit - quote cut]

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: misle
The reason people are fleeing the GOP is because the GOP is no longer conservative.

Keep telling yourself that.

I think people are confusing the GOP's expansion of govt and social services with not being conservative enough. The GOP has imo become more conservative in the last 8 years on social issues while becoming more liberal on fiscal issues. IMO that is a bad combination. And people agree.

I agree, but the people thinking the Dems are moving to the far left are misguided. The Dems are not tacking Left so much as they are articulating a Middle. The GOP's leaving that space so completely open has given them the chance to claim it as theirs alone. And amazingly they are not squandering the opportunity. You need the "middle/center" to win elections.

I think the democrats get that label of moving far to the left due to their leadership. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Franks, Kennedy are all the pillars of the democrats people see on TV and are in positions of power. But as a whole I agree with you the party has moderated with the entrance of moderate democrats that won seats from moderate republicans. 4 years ago if the democrats held power gun laws would be a viable platform. Today blue dog democrats smack that idea down so fast it makes your head spin.

btw I liked your post up top.

 

[DealMonkey]

Ahhh yes, the Republican party, that old black hole of lame.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the democrats get that label of moving far to the left due to their leadership. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Franks, Kennedy are all the pillars of the democrats people see on TV and are in positions of power. But as a whole I agree with you the party has moderated with the entrance of moderate democrats that won seats from moderate republicans. 4 years ago if the democrats held power gun laws would be a viable platform. Today blue dog democrats smack that idea down so fast it makes your head spin.

Nope, they get that label from angry old white dudes on AM radio and then, of course, Fox News.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the democrats get that label of moving far to the left due to their leadership. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Franks, Kennedy are all the pillars of the democrats people see on TV and are in positions of power. But as a whole I agree with you the party has moderated with the entrance of moderate democrats that won seats from moderate republicans. 4 years ago if the democrats held power gun laws would be a viable platform. Today blue dog democrats smack that idea down so fast it makes your head spin.

Nope, they get that label from angry old white dudes on AM radio and then, of course, Fox News.

Really? You believe Nancy Pelosi is moderate? You'd have to be pretty far to the left to believe that.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid
No, the situation was a matter of failing to change logins in the heat of discussion; but feel free to keep playing your little secret agent/ cyber assassin fantasy, it's all good.

That's how you were caught. Still doesn't change the fact that you need your girlfriend to back you up on an Internet forum. I do see that it pretty much came to a halt after the PFI thread, which makes me wonder if this "inflatable doll" - err, "girlfriend" - alibi is merely a figment of your imagination.

Anywho (<- made-up word alert!), this has run its course. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[edit - quote cut]

I was not "caught".

You, Mr. Bourne (probably on orders from Treadstone) made a false accusation against another forum member because he or she corrected your lousy grammar or something.

That makes you what? A l33t cyber sleuth? No...Kind of a jerk, right?

You squealed to the Forum Moderators.

The Forum Moderators ruled in our favor.

You lost, you should accept it and move on.



And just one last attempt to help you understand (though I wonder why I should bother since you seem to be on a mission to start a fight):

The issue was never "needing your girlfriend to back you up on an Internet forum".

As you have been told, but can't seem to comprehend (ask the mods) it was a shared computer, get it? Sometimes one of us would forget to logout; then the other would inadvertently be on the other's account. Oops, screwed up. Get it? Please ask the Mods to explain it to you, as I feel you just cannot understand, nor let it go.

Please get a life, Mr. Bourne.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Only because the Republican party is now watered-down and full of spineless wimps. (Oh, and the Leftist media marketing them as "dead" certainly doesn't help. It is not all Rush Limbaugh's fault either.)

If they got back to their FISCAL roots, dropped a lot of the social stuff (for a little while at least), became a little more "green" friendly, and grew some spines, they would get somewhere.

If I were in charge, I would basically write a new "Contract with America" (based more or less on "Libertarian" principles):

1) During the next 4 years, we promise not to touch "hot-topic" social issues like gay rights and abortion in any way (seen as good and bad by both sides).

2) Our own President has said that current deficit/debt levels are unsustainable, therefore...
A) We promise to pass a Balanced-Budget Amendment to the US Constitution, balance the budget, and begin paying off the federal debt such that the US is debt free by 2020. Doing this will require a leaner, meaner, more efficient government. Doing this also means that each and every American will have to make sacrifices for the good of the future health and viability of this country.
B) We will draft a step-by-step plan to eliminate the IRS and tax code as we know it, replacing it with a new "fair consumption" tax approach.

3) While we may disagree with our friends across the aisle that man causes global warming, we do agree that man must be responsible "stewards" of the planet and that environmental sustainability is essential to providing our children and grand children with a better planet on which to live and thrive. This means massive recycling efforts, alternative, natural energy sources, etc.

4) We are committed to completely revamping the US education system as we know it from top to bottom. In its current state, American students are simply not competitive on the world stage. Any and all ideas must be tried in this endeavor, including but not limited to school choice programs, uniforms, new funding strategies, firing of administrators, increasing teacher pay, eliminating teachers' unions, and much more.

5) Complete immigration reform: Increased fines for those who hire illegals, deportation of all illegals currently housed in US prisons, US military used for border patrol, shoot-to-kill authorization when illegal/harmful activity suspected, bigger walls and fences, a National ID system, cease the "born in the USA=citizen" law, replace with a "one or both parents are American citizens=citizen" law, grant citizenship to all illegals in the USA who are not in prison, make English the official US language, and finally create a fair, straightforward system that would allow just about anyone to apply for and obtain US citizenship within 2 years given sufficient demonstration of cultural and language competency and willingness to be a hard-working, productive American.

6) As a bonus to the American people, drugs will be legalized for those over 21 and taxed, bringing the War on Drugs to an end. Actually, why not reconsider the drinking age as well? Bring it down from 21 to 18? And maybe increase the driving age from 16 to 18?

Okay, flame suit on. Tell me what is so bad about the above!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: feralkid
No, the situation was a matter of failing to change logins in the heat of discussion; but feel free to keep playing your little secret agent/ cyber assassin fantasy, it's all good.

That's how you were caught. Still doesn't change the fact that you need your girlfriend to back you up on an Internet forum. I do see that it pretty much came to a halt after the PFI thread, which makes me wonder if this "inflatable doll" - err, "girlfriend" - alibi is merely a figment of your imagination.

Anywho (<- made-up word alert!), this has run its course. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[edit - quote cut]

I was not "caught".

You, Mr. Bourne (probably on orders from Treadstone) made a false accusation against another forum member because he or she corrected your lousy grammar or something.

That makes you what? A l33t cyber sleuth? No...Kind of a jerk, right?

You squealed to the Forum Moderators.

The Forum Moderators ruled in our favor.

You lost, you should accept it and move on.



And just one last attempt to help you understand (though I wonder why I should bother since you seem to be on a mission to start a fight):

The issue was never "needing your girlfriend to back you up on an Internet forum".

As you have been told, but can't seem to comprehend (ask the mods) it was a shared computer, get it? Sometimes one of us would forget to logout; then the other would inadvertently be on the other's account. Oops, screwed up. Get it? Please ask the Mods to explain it to you, as I feel you just cannot understand, nor let it go.

Please get a life, Mr. Bourne.

This is getting a bit intense... maybe you should get your "girlfriend" in here to bat for you 😉 .

By the way, the only info in the PFI thread is members and mods alike revealing your underhanded, pathetic ways. At no point does ANYONE - including mods - reveal that it's all just a big misunderstanding. Everything you're saying in your defense is totally unconfirmed. Maybe sierrita will confirm it for us :laugh:. But even if it IS confirmed, you're still just a chump with a girl getting your back 😉 .

Seriously child... let it die 😉

For fun lols

(fixed typos so feralkid's eyeballs wouldn't pop out)

 

[daniel49]

Another Phokos Gop is dying thread?:moon:
Turkey Lurkey the Sky is Falling, the sky is falling.
Only thing I see is Obama starting to frustrate his far left support. And Pelosi in Hot water.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Another Phokos Gop is dying thread?:moon:
Turkey Lurkey the Sky is Falling, the sky is falling.
Only thing I see is Obama starting to frustrate his far left support. And Pelosi in Hot water.

Maybe he's trying to make the most of the moment before it's too late?

What goes up must come down. Four years ago, it was the GOP. At that same time, the Dems showed that what hits rock bottom has a good chance of getting back up.

It's cyclical, and it always has been. The GOP's crumbling is certainly extreme, but it's not new. The reps were calling the dems down and out four years ago, and now the dems are calling the reps out. Blah blah blah... both are just examples of opportunistic carnivorous gloating.

I would actually like to see the right crumble enough such that a second party must rise from the ashes out of sheer necessity. Maybe we'll get the fiscal conservatism we need to balance out the left. The GOP as Bush left it sure as hell isn't it.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: chess9
The Republicans are in very serious trouble now, but they can win in 2012 by effectively splitting the Dems. Right now, the liberals are not happy with Obama. I know I'm seriously re-thinking my views on Obama. Unless he makes some strides to adjust the social imbalances in this country, I don't see myself voting for him again. If a real liberal runs against Obama as a third party candidate, I may well vote for him. Obama is taking the liberal vote for granted now, and that is a mistake, IMHO. We'll see what policies he puts in place in the next 3.7 years, but I'm now very skeptical he can get it right.

-Robert

Obama has like 70+ % approval rate, what the eff are you talking about?

Also there isn't a liberal third party person that would seriously threaten Obama's reelection, ralph nader got like half of percent in 2008.

Three years is a long time. In 2001 Bush had high approval ratings, but by 2005 his numbers were way down. And, Obama is making a lot of mistakes.... The opening for the Republicans WILL be there, sorry to say.

-Robert

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
*snip*

You've got my vote. Only problem is that the GOP != Libertarians

You're not going to get factions within the GOP to leave certain issues alone, especially gay rights. This is actually why I think the theoretical dismantling of the GOP is good for the country long term. In the short term, we'll see - correction, are seeing - a tyrannical rule by one party. When things go sideways - correction, as things continue to go sideways - there will be plenty of space for a fresh party to emerge. If this party is grounded is fiscal conservatism and flexible on social issues, it could prove to be a very viable party and a catch-all party for anyone who's not a closet socialist.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
In order to embrace new ideas, you have to be willing to let go of some of the old ideas. If recent history is any guide, any Republican who does that immediately has his buttons and chevrons ripped off, right before the door hits him in ass. The Republican party is vying for the smallest tent in the circus right now.

They haven't stuck to their talking points for a long time in large part for the simple reason that it's impossible due to them being mutually contradictory. Small government and enforcing "family values", for example, contradict each other...

Great post, it reinforces thoughts that I've been trying to post here for years. Keep up the good work.

The fascinating thing to me (and also their ultimate demise) is to contrast the way the Republican party runs itself to the way they want to run the US. The two could not be any different. The Republican party is run like a dictatorship; although right now it is run like a deposed dictatorship waiting for another dictator. But their ideals are for a small government with personal freedom. Those two things are incompatable but inevitiable.

The reason why they resorted to this tactic is highlighted in your posts above. The republican party overreached in an attempt to encompass everyone. Heck, it temporarilly worked with a peak in Reagan's landslide victory. But, when you include everyone, you include mutual contradictions and a loosely bound coalition. They had to rule with an iron fist to keep the coalition together. Make any movement away from the party line and you are finished. New GOP candidates were forced into signing documents toting the party agenda line-for-line if they EVER hoped to get any GOP support.

I've asked this before multiple times, and I've never gotten a response. Why should an anti-aborition person necesarilly want lower taxes? Why should someone who wants lower taxes be pro-gun? Why should someone who is pro-gun be anti-gay rights? Why should an anti-gay rights person want a stronger military? Why should someone who wants a smaller government want to protect children from profanity on TV? Are there ANY real ties in the Republican party?

They overreached and couldn't hold thier promisses to everyone. Heck, they haven't held their promisses for almost anyone. Presidents from Nixon onwards (yes, even Reagan) weren't fiscally conservative, even though they all promissed to be so. The biggest expansion of gay rights occured while Republicans held the congress, presidency, and supreme court. Nothing has been done to stop abortion. The biggest gun sale boom came under Obama (and probably the biggest gun rights boom as well I predict). About the only promise they kept was to lower taxes, but they forgot the flip side of lowered spending to appease fiscal conservatives.

America is waking up. The GOP needs to create a new base and stick to it. Otherwise it'll be Democrat rule for quite some time.

Both good post. :thumbsup:

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: misle
The reason people are fleeing the GOP is because the GOP is no longer conservative.

Keep telling yourself that.

I think people are confusing the GOP's expansion of govt and social services with not being conservative enough. The GOP has imo become more conservative in the last 8 years on social issues while becoming more liberal on fiscal issues. IMO that is a bad combination. And people agree.

Agreed 100%.

 

[BoberFett]

If we're lucky, the GOP as we know it will die and make room for a fiscally responsible party.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm about to change my party affiliation from Republican to Independent.
We need a party for fiscal conservatives, who are socially liberal (ie: pro choice, pro stem cell, pro gay marriage, etc.)

^ this.

Although I was raised fiscal/social conservative I think this is were the repubs are losing the younger generation.

What two people do with each other is none of my business. Although personally I don't agree with abortion I think a woman should be free to decide.

The problem is we (people like me) are stuck with:

A. A party that preaches(<--doesn't act) fiscal conservatism but are crazy with the anti abortion anti everything stuff.

B. A party that spends (<--like A just doesn't lie about it) on give away programs and is a free for all on conservative issue as well as crazy environ issues as well

I think I am in the group that has migrated away from the repub party and is currently looking for a home. At this point I would have to be considered an independant.

-fish

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm about to change my party affiliation from Republican to Independent.
We need a party for fiscal conservatives, who are socially liberal (ie: pro choice, pro stem cell, pro gay marriage, etc.)

Instead of being "pro" on a host of controversional issues, how we just call it "I dont give a shit" The second a politician weighs in on a red meat social issue for political points, I get turned off. This is why I admire Obama. He seems to be avoiding these debates.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm about to change my party affiliation from Republican to Independent.
We need a party for fiscal conservatives, who are socially liberal (ie: pro choice, pro stem cell, pro gay marriage, etc.)

I know I come off as the liberal dude but I would respect anyone who takes this position.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Mani
Originally I thought this was just a cyclical thing and it very well may still be, but the ass-whooping the republican party is taking seems unprecedented.

You must be young. In '84, Reagan beat Mondale in 49 states, for just under 98% of the electoral college (and something like an 18 point margin in the popular vote). THAT was an asswhoppin'. Obama only beat McCain by just under 8%. These things are cyclical. The GOP will be back - not because they're showing any particular brilliance at the moment (they're not), but because the Dems will become corrupted by their power (they're well on their way so far) and make themselves look worse. You can't run trillion dollar deficits forever, despite what Obama thinks.

Mondale vs. Reagan was the one thing I thought of that came close. The difference is that it was coming off a strong 4 years for an incumbent president, and the dems still retained control of congress. That was more of the nation responding to a successful presidency than the across the board party ass-whooping that we're seeing today.