Is there a future for the GOP?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
The GOP will have to seriously look at Ron Paul's message if they want to remain relevant. I know this board shows nothing but hate towards him, however the message itself appealed to nothing but younger Americans of all colors and religions.

The nation will always have a large fiscal conservative base. The problem is the evangelical Christians trying to legislate morality along with an absurd outlook on foreign policy.

The base is solid, limited government, fiscal sanity, etc. The current neoconservatives have almost completely lost their way. Nominating Romney is proof enough that they are hurting.

The Republicans are just too fragmented and will likely have a dramatic shift within the next decade.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The nation will always have a large fiscal conservative base. The problem is the evangelical Christians trying to legislate morality along with an absurd outlook on foreign policy.

Both parties legislate morality. What do you call all of the social programs to help single moms, but legislating morality.

And to quote Christine O'Donnell, Republican candidate for Senate and former witch

Dig a little deeper into her past record, however, and one gets the sense that O'Donnell's legislative outlook is basically scripted by her social and religious views. In a C-SPAN appearance the Huffington Post unearthed from December 1996, the Delaware Republican said it was a "misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality."

"The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality," she said. "So you can't get around legislating morality."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/christine-odonnell-slams-_n_719201.html
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I know this board shows nothing but hate towards him, however the message itself appealed to nothing but younger Americans of all colors and religions.

The base is solid, limited government, fiscal sanity, etc. The current neoconservatives have almost completely lost their way. Nominating Romney is proof enough that they are hurting.

The Republicans are just too fragmented and will likely have a dramatic shift within the next decade.

Are younger Americans really stupid enough to keep from realizing that the free market policies will simply result in 5% of the populace owning the means of production and receiving all the wealth while the other 95% labor as slaves to support them?

I don't know. The free market dogma seems to have infested most of the electorate, with the result being our nation's slow transformation into a third world country. Our nation is a joke; we can't even figure out how to run a health care system correctly when almost every other first world industrialized country is able to run circles around us in that department while spending far less money to do it.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Both parties legislate morality. What do you call all of the social programs to help single moms, but legislating morality.

There's a big difference between legislating morality in such a way that people's activities and life choices are restricted and doing it in such a way that people have freedom.

For example, if the Republicans passed a law that forced everyone to go to church and to become Christian, they would be forcing their religious lunacy on the populace. In contrast, a law that allows freedom of religion is "legislating morality", but doesn't impose a moral code on anyone.

Likewise, legalizing abortion doesn't force anyone to do anything. Anyone who doesn't like abortion is free not to have one. When the Republicans try to make it illegal, they are basically forcing their religious insanity onto the public since the only reason to oppose abortion or to believe that a cell mass without a brain is the same as a person is religious insanity.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
When the old white male Baby Boomers finally die off, they're in trouble. Can't happen soon enough.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Are younger Americans really stupid enough to keep from realizing that the free market policies will simply result in 5% of the populace owning the means of production and receiving all the wealth while the other 95% labor as slaves to support them?

I don't know. The free market dogma seems to have infested most of the electorate, with the result being our nation's slow transformation into a third world country. Our nation is a joke; we can't even figure out how to run a health care system correctly when almost every other first world industrialized country is able to run circles around us in that department while spending far less money to do it.

Don't get me wrong liberals will still find his views extreme because he is fiscally conservative. 50% of the population will always disagree with the other half, my comment was directed at Republicans.

They have lost a huge percentage of the younger vote of which Paul brought in droves.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
There's a big difference between legislating morality in such a way that people's activities and life choices are restricted and doing it in such a way that people have freedom.

For example, if the Republicans passed a law that forced everyone to go to church and to become Christian, they would be forcing their religious lunacy on the populace. In contrast, a law that allows freedom of religion is "legislating morality", but doesn't impose a moral code on anyone.

Likewise, legalizing abortion doesn't force anyone to do anything. Anyone who doesn't like abortion is free not to have one. When the Republicans try to make it illegal, they are basically forcing their religious insanity onto the public since the only reason to oppose abortion or to believe that a cell mass without a brain is the same as a person is religious insanity.

You are leaving out passing laws forcing people to subsidize single mothers. That is certainly restricting my freedom.

Or likewise extending government benefits to women carrying cell mass without a brain is also insanity. Why should I be forced to support something that is not even alive :confused:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,695
31,043
146
Both parties legislate morality. What do you call all of the social programs to help single moms, but legislating morality.

And to quote Christine O'Donnell, Republican candidate for Senate and former witch



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/christine-odonnell-slams-_n_719201.html

you still don't get it. healthcare for women, aid to single moms, is an economic good. It is cheaper than allowing this "welfare state" that you hate so much to balloon out of control.

general healthcare costs are far cheaper, far better economically and socially than the american tradition of sucking at life until you need to deal with catastrophic health issues.

This is the problem with the typical conservative today--they can only see money and cost; they are unable to compare and contrast one type vs the other.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,451
6,688
126
Your thesis is that everyone that disagrees with you politically is delusional. It's an interesting position for an intellectual coward, in that you don't ever have to debate a point. I live in the real world, where even those I disagree with sometimes have points of view I hadn't considered, so the "I'm far to superior to argue with you" approach doesn't work for me.
When you grow up moonie, you'll discover that you're not all knowing, you'll find that many other people are capable of rational thought and that they often have reasonable ideas, even though you don't agree with them.

In the first place this is not my thesis but facts uncovered by scientific tests a bit of which is described here:

"There’s the old saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to their own facts. Well there is significant evidence that Political Conservatives don’t appear to have a problem with creating their “own facts” when reality doesn't’t suit them.

That’s bad. How do you reason or compromise with someone that exists in an imaginary reality?

Now, there were always wing nuts, on both the Left and Right, that would make stuff up or come up with things that had no basis in reality but I always considered them to be at the extremes. What Moody was saying was that this “making up your own facts” has actually become part of the Conservative mainstream. After thinking about it, and reviewing his data, I have to admit that he may be right and that’s really scary.

Now, let’s be a little careful here because “Conservative” covers a lot of ground and not all Conservatives are living in la-la land but there are clearly far too many to be healthy for the country. According to Mooney, those most likely to generate their own version of reality are those with an authoritarian bent. Unfortunately that includes a lot of Conservatives including just about every Evangelical Christian.

Worse yet is they’re organized. I remember reading that the Conservative Christian solution to the majority of biblical scholars coming to conclusions they didn't’t like was simply to “train” more “biblical scholars” at conservative seminaries. At the moment they’re apparently cranking them out in such numbers that the idea of a “majority opinion” has just about lost all meaning in biblical scholarship.

According to Mooney the same thing is happening in economics, politics and law. If you don’t like what the experts say, then create your own experts seems to be the strategy and, unfortunately, it works when the public at large just doesn't’t have the knowledge to differentiate between reality and total crap and journalism hobbles itself with a misplaced concept of “balance.”

This is where loyalty, in most cases a virtue, becomes a vice. If some of these experts realize that the conservative dogma is wrong and say so, they become immediate pariahs and outcasts. Toeing the party line is more important than the truth.

Mooney points out that while the Left also has its share of delusional types, such as the anti-vaccine crowd, these aren't’t ideas championed by the educated elite on the Left because they don’t match up with the facts. As a matter of fact, criticism from the elite on the Left is stronger than criticism from the Right.

So it’s simple right? These are intelligent people. All you have to do is show them the facts and reason with them. That’s where it gets spooky. Anyone who has had exchanges on forums or in person has realized that it just doesn't’t seem to work. As a matter of fact, the more you show them they’re wrong, the stronger they seem to cling to their delusions.

Mooney presents evidence that this is indeed the case. The psychology is such that the need to believe what they want to believe is stronger than logic, stronger than facts and, in the final analysis, stronger than truth."

-----------

Naturally, trying to explain this to you will probably drive you deeper into denial. Your big problem is that because you want to make me suffers some kind of emotional pain by calling me an intellectual coward because it's really you that's the intellectual coward, you will not want to admit so to yourself. If you could just see that you are an intellectual coward only because you had to become one to preserve your sense of dignity, you could maybe learn to let go of it as an adult. At any rate no matter what you say, the earth goes round the sun and the conservative mind is the kind of mind that needs to escape reality. All I did was point that out to you. All I did was explain, when you tried to claim that liberals are politically delusional that the science tells us otherwise. I had to assume, therefore, that you were projecting. I chose to be generous, of course, because I assumed you didn't know the real facts and weren't out and out lying. To me that is just being scientifically logical because it's likely as a conservative that you're not so much a liar as in denial. Anyway, you have been told the facts but they won't matter to you.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I've long questioned the viability of the GOP as a national party going forward.

The "beauty" of a two-party system is that power corrupts; thus, every few years, a "We're not Democrats" platform is all the GOP needs.

I've said for years that, when the GOP has success at the polls, few people actually vote for the GOP; most just vote against the Dems. The GOP has been woefully short on truly inspiring leadership these last 20+ years. Dole was dull as dirt, Newt was a clown who couldn't get his own foot out of his mouth, Bush was just not-Clinton, and on and on. Luckily for them, the Dems screw up frequently enough to keep the GOP going.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
You are leaving out passing laws forcing people to subsidize single mothers. That is certainly restricting my freedom.

Or likewise extending government benefits to women carrying cell mass without a brain is also insanity. Why should I be forced to support something that is not even alive :confused:

I agree with you that forced altruism is a form of legislating morality.

I, too, would like to see policies enacted to discourage the poor from having children they cannot afford. (Want to be on welfare? Do you already have 1 child? You need to get yourself sterilized first.) However, I wouldn't count on any politician even hinting at that sort of an issue with a 20 foot pole.

Ideally, do you think that we should allow these poor single mothers and children to die of starvation in the name of preserving individual rights and the non-initiation of physical force principle? Could it be argued that laws that protect private property ownership which prevent the poor from taking land and farming it are also a form of legislating morality in some sort of a way? What do you recommend?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
In the first place this is not my thesis but facts uncovered by scientific tests a bit of which is described here:


Mooney presents evidence that this is indeed the case.

I have repeated asked you to support your statement about science proving what you claim, but Mooney refuses to present evidence that this is indeed the case.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
This is the same shit we have heard for years yet, and pun intended, the GOP cleaned house less than 2 years ago. You guys are kidding yourselves.

Leftists do this alot. "The end of the GOP," "The end of capitalism," yadda yadda yadda.

I guess we should let them get their exercise.
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
The future I'd like to see for both the D & R parties involves a number of guillotines.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
The future I'd like to see for both the D & R parties involves a number of guillotines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSi7Rtw-4Gs

You better be careful posting stuff like that man, they've been "detaining" people for posting stuff like that. I would just like to clarify that my video link is meant to convey the message that death is not the answer for the good to thrive. Thus, depicting the evil guy calling for death proves that is not an example we should follow.

That is all, move along.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,451
6,688
126
The problem is not the two party system but the fact that there is only the party of money. All the rage against the parties should be channeled into a call for a constitutional convention. The Supreme Court destroyed American democracy, in my opinion, when it declared that corporations are people and money is speech. There is no hope for us if that isn't changed.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The problem is not the two party system but the fact that there is only the party of money. All the rage against the parties should be channeled into a call for a constitutional convention. The Supreme Court destroyed American democracy, in my opinion, when it declared that corporations are people and money is speech. There is no hope for us if that isn't changed.

Many corporations are people. A lot of small business owners switch to an LLC because taxes on a sole pro-proprietor are brutal and liability issues. People who own small businesses aren't people. I am guess you were just fine with the supreme court mandating we purchase products from a private company?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
The problem is not the two party system but the fact that there is only the party of money. All the rage against the parties should be channeled into a call for a constitutional convention. The Supreme Court destroyed American democracy, in my opinion, when it declared that corporations are people and money is speech. There is no hope for us if that isn't changed.

That's like saying the Titanic was doomed when it broke in half.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Many corporations are people. A lot of small business owners switch to an LLC because taxes on a sole pro-proprietor are brutal and liability issues. People who own small businesses aren't people. I am guess you were just fine with the supreme court mandating we purchase products from a private company?
So what? Do the people that constitute that corporation not already have free speech and the ability to donate money themselves? Why do they need the corporation to ALSO have unlimited ability to donate, if indeed the corporations are indistinguishable from just the people that make it up? Why not just donate the money, and 'speak,' as people?